^^^••MM^H^^^^^^H 


STACK 
ANNEX 

PA 

4037 
Z5B6 
1880 


HH^Hn 


y/  // 

«KfUi+y  /  < 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  HOMERIC  POEMS 

&  £ertnre 

BY 

DR.    HERMANN    BONITZ 

TRANSLATED   FROM   THE  FOURTH   GERMAN  EDITION 
BY  LEWIS  R.  PACKARD 


NEW    YORK 
HARPER    &    BROTHERS,   PUBLISHERS 

Fn.VNKI.IN     SQUARE 

1880 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1879,  by 

HARPER    &     BROTHERS, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


STACK 
ANNEX 

PR 
4037 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. 


THE  following  lecture  was  delivered  in  1860  in 
Yienna,  and  has  passed  through  four  editions  in 
Germany.  It  has  been  recognized  by  many  schol- 
ars as  presenting  in  brief  space  and  with  fairness 
the  points  involved  in  the  discussion,  and  the  prog- 
ress which  has  been  made  towards  a  solution  of 
the  problem.  I  have  been  led  to  translate  it  main- 
ly by  the  fact,  as  I  suppose  it  to  be,  that  there  is  no 
work  in  English  wrhich  gives  any  just  idea  of  the 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  accepting  the  Homeric 
poems  as  the  production  of  one  poet,  unless  it  be 
the  large  and  expensive  work  of  Mure,  which  de- 
fends the  unity  of  authorship.  It  seemed  desira- 
ble that  there  should  be  accessible  in  English  a 
partial  statement  of  the  reasons  which  have  led  so 
many  German  scholars  to  doubt  the  unity  of  au- 
thorship of  the  poems.  Besides,  the  notes  contain 
a  very  valuable,  though  not  of  course  a  complete, 


4  INTRODUCTORY   NOTE. 

bibliography  of  the  subject,  which  would  be  of 
great  service  to  one  taking  up  the  study  of  the 
Homeric  question. 

I  have  translated  the  lecture  in  full ;  but  in  the 
notes  I  have  taken  the  liberty  of  omitting  and  con- 
densing, so  far  as  could  be  done  without  detracting 
from  their  value.  The  references  I  have  verified  so 
far  as  was  within  my  power. 

LEWIS  R.  PACKARD. 


ON  the  threshold  of  Greek  literature,  as  its  ear- 
liest known  work,  not  to  us  only,  but  to  the  Greeks 
themselves  at  the  height  of  their  historical  devel- 
opment,1 stand  two  majestic  poems,  to  which  few 
other  works  of  profane  literature  can  be  compared, 
either  for  manifold  influence  on  the  intellectual 
life  of  their  own  nation,  or  for  admiring  recogni- 
tion among  all  peoples  of  high  culture,  even  after 
the  lapse  of  twenty-five  centuries — the  Iliad  and 
Odyssey  of  Homer.  It  seemed  even  to  the  ancients 
that  the  imperishable  works  of  Greek  literature, 
especially  in  poetry,  were  but  the  variously  unfold- 
ed flowers  of  a  tree  whose  root  and  trunk  were  the 
Homeric  poems.2  The  Greek  epic  poetry  was  at 
first  an  echo,  in  later  times  a  conscious  imitation, 
of  Homer.  The  founder  of  Greek  tragedy  in  its 
classic  grandeur,  the  mighty  Aeschylus,  declared 
himself  that  his  poems  were  but  fragments  fallen 


6  THE   OKIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

from  the  rich  table  of  Homer;3  and  the  choicest 
praise  of  Sophokles — that  master-poet  whose  dra- 
mas, even  in  modern  times,  in  feeble  reproductions, 
without  the  glory  of  festive  representation,  without 
the  rhythmic  dance  of  the  chorus,  without  the  in- 
imitable flavor  of  the  original  language,  yet  fasci- 
nate their  hearers — was  that  his  tragedies  eminently 
displayed  a  Homeric  character.4  The  Greek  his- 
torians based  their  work  on  Homer,  at  first  in 
unquestioning  reception  of  his  legends  and  invol- 
untary imitation  of  his  narrative  style,  afterwards 
in  critical  explanation  of  the  subject-matter  of  his 
poems.5  The  Greek  philosophy,  although,  in  its  ef- 
fort to  solve  by  the  intellect  the  highest  problems 
of  humanity,  it  gradually  came  into  most  decided 
conflict  with  the  popular  faith  and  with  the  Ho- 
meric poems,  the  most  sacred  representative  of  that 
faith,6  yet,  at  the  same  time,  sought  eagerly  to  find 
in  those  poems  the  foundation  of  its  convictions.7 
From  Homer,  from  certain  particular  verses  of 
the  Iliad,  Pheidias,  in  the  highest  bloom  of  Greek 
sculpture,  derived  the  idea  of  the  Zeus  which  he 
set  forth  at  Olympia  for  the  veneration  of  the  peo- 
ple.8 At  Athens,  the  intellectual  centre  of  Greece, 


THE   ORIGIN    OF    THE   HOMERIC    POEMS.  7 

tlie  systematic  reading  of  the  Homeric  poems  was 
made,  by  an  institution  of  Solon's,  an  important 
part  of  the  greatest  national  festival  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  sixth  century  before  Christ.9  From 
the  time  that  reading  and  writing  were  introduced 
as  a  constant  element  into  the  education  of  the 
Athenian  youth,  the  poems  of  Homer,  especially 
the  Iliad,  formed  the  primary  and  necessary  ma- 
terial for  training  in  these  matters,  as  well  as  in 
memorizing  and  in  reading  aloud;10  and  when,  in 
the  fifth  century  B.C.,  a  young  Athenian  of  noble 
family  boasts  in  company  that  he  still  knows  by 
heart  the  whole  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  no  one  finds 
anything  incredible  in  the  statement.11  Whatever 
Greek  classic,  in  poetry  or  prose,  we  read,12  what- 
ever branch  of  Greek  culture  we  study,  an  intimate 
acquaintance  with  Homer  is  an  indispensable  con- 
dition of  a  thorough  understanding  of  it,  for  the 
literature  and  all  the  intellectual  life  of  the  Hel- 
lenic people  are  bound  by  a  thousand  threads  to 
the  poems  of  Homer. 

To  this  universality  of  influence  among  his  own 
people,13  of  which  the  instances  above  given  are  only 
hints,  corresponds  the  range  of  extension  abroad  of 


8  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC    POEMS. 

these  poems.  They  have  gone  far  beyond  the  lim- 
its which  are  ordinarily  set  for  the  greatest  works  of 
genius  by  the  lapse  of  time,  the  divergencies  of  na- 
tional character,  and  the  growth  of  new  civilizations. 
Since  the  leading  modern  nations  have  definitely 
recognized  the  connection  of  their  own  culture 

O 

with  that  of  the  classical  nations  of  antiquity,  and 
have  found  for  this  conviction  an  expression,  nec- 
essarily varying  in  different  times,  in  the  form  they 
have  given  to  the  higher  education,  the  Homeric 
poems  have  taken  a  prominent  place  in  the  train- 
ing of  all  whose  early  years  give  them  an  oppor- 
tunity to  study  Greek.  Although  the  learning  of 
that  language  is  in  some  cases  made  much  too  la- 
borious, so  that  in  after-years  one  looks  back  upon 
the  time  spent  in  it  as  so  much  fruitless  waste,  yet 
commonly  the  reading  of  Homer  forms  a  bright 
spot  on  the  dark  background.  For  so  soon  as  the 
first  struggle  with  the  discouraging  abundance  of 
forms  and  words  is  over,  the  fresh  immortal  youth 
in  the  poetry  affects  the  student  with  a  resistless 
charm.  And  though  the  delicate  bloom  of  the 
original  is  destroyed  by  the  loss  of  the  sounds 
themselves  in  a  translation,  yet  there  remains  a 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE    HOMERIC   POEMS.  9 

vigorous  material  of  true  poetry  so  indestructible 
that  all  the  cultivated  peoples  of  modern  times  re- 
gard a  successful  translation  of  Homer  as  a  real 
gain  to  their  own  national  literature.14  Thus,  the 
effect  upon  our  own  German  literature  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  Yoss's  translation  is  still  manifest  from 
the  letters  and  memories  of  that  most  active  period 
of  our  literary  history ;  and  it  will  continue  to  be 
marked  in  its  influence  upon  our  poetry  when  those 
recollections  shall  have  long  lost  their  freshness. 
The  poetry  of  Homer  in  the  version  of  Yoss  be- 
came a  common  inheritance  of  all  cultivated  per- 
sons, in  which  every  one  felt  it  his  duty  to  claim  a 
share.  It  cannot,  indeed,  be  compared  with  the 
original  in  exquisite  effects  of  language,  in  the  nat- 
ural flow  of  the  rhythm,  in  life-like  richness  of  sig- 
nificance, in  picturesqueness  of  epithets;  but  its 
true  and  faithful  reproduction  of  many  character- 
istics of  the  poems  widened  the  circle  of  those 
who  could  advance  from  vague  admiration  to  dis- 
tinct knowledge  of  the  name  and  poetry  of  Homer. 
The  sharp  clearness  of  sensual  perceptions  and  the 
poet's  self-abandonment  to  them,  the  power  of  nat- 
ural passion,  the  vividness  of  presentation  of  out- 


10  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE    HOMERIC   POEMS. 

ward  events  or  inward  emotion,  and  all  this  con- 
trolled by  a  judicious  moderation  which  seems 
to  have  been  the  happy  endowment  of  the  Greek 
intellect — these  characteristics  of  Homer  became, 
as  it  were,  a  standard  of  truth  to  nature,  to  which 
every  descriptive  poem  must  conform.15  For,  to 
use  Goethe's  words,  "  Homer  presents  realities,  wre 
mostly  effects ;  he  paints  the  terrible,  we  the  terror; 
he  the  charming,  we  the  charm."16  When  Les- 
sing  compares  poetry,  as  to  the  power  of  represen- 
tation, with  the  plastic  arts,  and  draws  with  con- 
clusive criticism  the  fixed  boundaries  of  the  two 
fields,  it  is  in  Homer  especially,  whose  truth  to  nat- 
ure he  trusts  as  if  it  were  Nature  herself,  that  lie 
finds  the  norm  for  poetry.  No  poet  of  onr  time 
and  of  our  people  approaches  so  nearly  to  Homer's 
objectiveness  as  Goethe  himself,  who  so  sharply 
contrasted  him  with  modern  poets  in  the  words 
above  quoted,  and  it  was  Goethe  who  gave  up  Nau- 
sikaa  as  a  theme  after  it  had  fascinated  him  and 
lie  had  already  sketched  a  plan  of  treatment,  on 
the  ground  that  no  one  could  safely  venture  into 
such  rivalry  with  Homer.17 

When  we   consider  thus  the   power  of  these 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE    HOMERIC   POEMS.  11 

poems,  we  understand  how  their  author  was  thought 
worthy  by  his  own  people  of  heroic,  almost  of  di- 
vine, honors,18  and  was  referred  to  by  them  as  "  the 
poet,"  without  further  definition.  What  the  admi- 
ration of  his  people  expressed  in  this  way  has  been 
confirmed  in  its  true  significance  by  the  testimony 
of  succeeding  generations. 

But  the  almost  divine  honor  of  this  hero-poet  in 
his  own  nation,  and  the  undisputed  recognition  he 
obtained  through  more  than  two  thousand  years, 
could  not  protect  him  from  the  sudden  uprising  of 
doubts,  one  may  say,  as  to  his  very  existence,  and 
of  a  theory  of  the  most  opposite  character  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey.  We  may  state 
the  new  views  somewhat  as  follows : 

The  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  which  we  call  the  poems 
of  Homer,  are  not  the  work  of  a  single  poet ;  but 
each  of  them — certainly,  at  least,  of  the  older  of 
the  two,  the  Iliad,  this  may  be  confidently  said — is 
made  up  of  the  separate  songs  of  different  poets. 
For  hundreds  of  years  there  were  in  circulation 
among  the  Greek  tribes  heroic  songs  about  the  in- 
cidents of  the  Trojan  legend,  each  one  of  moderate 
length,  each  containing  only  a  single  transaction, 


12  THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMEKIC   POEMS. 

designed  to  be  sung  with  the  accompaniment  of 
the  lyre,  and  to  be  heard  by  a  -company  who,  after 
a  banquet  at  any  festival  occasion,  would  enjoy  re- 
calling the  achievements  of  their  ancestors.  In 
course  of  time  these  separate  songs  were  combined 
according  to  the  order  of  the  story,  at  first  into 
large  groups  and  then  into  the  complete  wholes, 
pretty  much  as  we  now  have  them,  and  were  then, 
at  last,  made  permanent  in  written  form  by  the 
orders  of  Peisistratos,  in  the  sixth  century  before 
Christ.  It  is,  then,  not  the  work  of  a  single  man, 
but  the  poetic  product  of  a  long  period,  which  we 
find  incorporated  into  the  Iliad. 

These  are  some  of  the  principal  ideas  which  F. 
A.  Wolf,  the  founder  of  philological  science  as  now 
understood,  set  forth  near  the  close  of  the  last  cen- 
tury in  his  Prolegomena  to  the  Homeric  poems.19 
As  the  veneration  for  the  name  of  Homer,  then 
freshly  intensified  by  the  recent  publication  of 
Voss's  translation,  had  not  been  confined  to  the 
narrow  circle  of  professional  Greek  scholars,  so 
the  excitement  produced  by  Wolf's  book  extended 
far  beyond  that  limited  range.20  The  philosopher 
Fichte  declared,  out  of  lively  sympathy,  that  he 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  13 

himself  had  reached,  on  a  priori  grounds,  the  same 
result  that  Wolf  had  attained  through  historical  re- 
search, an  expression  of  approval  to  which  Wolf  re- 
plied with  humorous  irony.  Of  more  weight  was 
the  entire  assent  to  his  views  of  the  acute  scholar 
W.  von  Humboldt.  On  the  other  hand,  Schiller,  who 
maintained  with  Humboldt  a  lively  and  fruitful 
exchange  of  thought  on  aesthetic  questions,  declared 
it  absolutely  barbarous  to  think  of  dismembering 
the  Iliad  or  of  its  having  ever  been  put  together 
from  originally  separate  songs.21  Lest  we  should 
suppose  this  the  unanimous  verdict  of  true  poets 
on  the  theories  of  philologists,  let  us  hear  at  once 
Goethe's  enthusiastic  assent  to  Wolfs  views22 — 

"Erst  die  Gesundheit  des  Marines,  der,  endlich  voin  Na- 

men  Horneros 
Kiihn   uns  befreiend,  uns   auch  ruft  in  die  vollere 

Bahn ! 
Denn  wer  wagte  mit  GSttern  den  Kampf,  und  wer  mit 

dem  Einen  ? 

Doch   Homeride   zu   sein,  auch   nur   als   letzter,  ist 
schon." 

Still  the  same  Goethe,  in  his  old  age,  withdrew  his 
assent  to  Wolfs  revolutionary  view,  and  preferred 


14  THE    OKIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

to  believo  in,  and  gladly  open  his  mind  to.  Homer 
as  an  individual,  his  poems  as  a  whole.23 

"We  cannot  here  trace  out  further  the  sketch  of 
these  various  and  varying  impressions  made  by 
Wolf's  views.  It  must  be  enough  to  have  given 
the  principal  facts  in  connection  with  the  leading 
names,  which  may  serve  as  a  type  of  what  went  on 
in  the  educated  world  at  large.  The  waves  of  dis- 
cussion would  soon  have  subsided,  and  peaceful  ac- 
quiescence in  the  traditional  views  have  returned, 
had  nothing  but  a  troublesome  paradox  been  thrown 
out  to  the  world  in  Wolf's  book.  The  merit  of  the 
book,  that  which  makes  it  a  notable  and  fruitful 
event  in  the  field  of  historical  science,  is  not  the 
boldness  of  its  attack  upon  a  generally  received 
opinion,  but  the  conscientiousness  of  its  method. 
For  nearly  twenty  years  Wolf  silently  entertained 
and  examined  the  ideas  which  are  unfolded  in  his 
Prolegomena.24  All  that  could  be  detected  by  an 
eye  steadily  fixed  on  the  subject  in  the  laboriously 
gathered  traditions  of  antiquity,  in  the  poems  them- 
selves, in  the  general  progress  of  culture — all  this  lie 
considered  with  the  strictest  conscientiousness  be- 
fore he  finally,  with  unmistakable  reluctance,25  re- 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  15 

solved  to  break  loose  from  a  belief  which  had  been 
no  less  warmly  cherished  by  him  than  by  others,  and 
which  only  the  pitiless  force  of  reasoning  compel- 
led the  earnest  investigator  to  abandon.  This  merit 
of  his  book  no  one  has  remarked  more  justly  than 
F.  Schlegel,  a  man  to  whom  certainly  cannot  be 
ascribed  any  pleasure  in  the  overthrow  or  weaken- 
ing of  an  old  and  settled  state  of  things.  "  Wolf's 
book,"  says  lie,  "  by  the  thirst  for  knowledge  and 
love  of  truth  which  inspire  it,  and  by  its  firm  grasp 
and  close  linking-together  of  so  long  a  series  of 
thoughts  and  observations  in  such  a  field,  is  a 
thorough  model  of  the  investigation  of  a  point 
in  ancient  history,  and  yet  its  defenders  compre- 
hended it  almost  as  little,  to  say  nothing  of  using 
it,  as  its  assailants  did."  The  want  which  Schle- 
gel saw  in  Wolf's  contemporaries  was  made  good 
in  time ;  the  following  generation,  no  longer  be- 
wildered by  the  novelty  of  his  theory,  gave  his  in- 
vestigations their  true  value  by  developing  fully 
the  various  lines  of  research  first  opened  by  him. 
The  thorough  study  of  the  poems  in  regard  to  their 
internal  consistency  and  their  linguistic  and  met- 
rical form,  the  examination  of  all  the  statements 


16  THE   ORIGIN   OF    THE    HOMERIC   POEMS. 

of  ancient  writers  bearing  upon  Homer  and  the 
Homeric  poems,  the  combination  of  these  research- 
es with  a  study  of  the  general  course  of  culture 
among  the  Greeks,  and  the  comparison  of  their  re- 
sults with  kindred  phenomena  in  other  nations — all 
these  points  must  be  separately  and  fully  weighed 
before  a  settled  conclusion  can  be  attained.  To 
one  scholar,  K.  Lachmann,26  the  acute  investigator 
in  the  field  of  the  early  German  poetry,  belongs  in- 
disputably the  special  merit  of  having  given,  in  his 
minute  and  exhaustive  study  of  one  single  point — 
the  self-consistency  of  the  Iliad — a  model  for  such 
examinations,  and  an  important  contribution  to  the 
solving  of  the  problem.  He  does  not,  however, 
stand  alone ;  for  in  this  field,  as  in  the  others,  each 
of  which  must  be  separately  worked,  other  scholars 
have  brought  further  support  to  the  view  proposed 
by  Wolf.  And,  at  the  same  time,  with  no  less 
acuteness  and  zeal  for  the  truth,  has  everything 
been  used  which  could  support  the  traditional  be- 
lief in  the  original  unity  of  each  poem,  and  in  Ho- 
mer as  their  author.27  The  great  importance  of  the 
Homeric  poems,  not  only  in  relation  to  Greek  his- 
tory and  literature,  but  also  to  all  epic  poetry,  has 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  17 

brought  it  about  that  the  "  Homeric  question,"  to 
use  the  common  phrase,  in  all  the  course  of  the 
discussion  as  well  as  at  its  beginning,  has  secured 
the  attention  of  learned  men  even  outside  of  the 
circle  of  specialists.  But  for  such  lookers-on  it  is 
difficult, almost  impossible,  to  find  their  way  through 
the  labyrinth  of  separate  investigations  of  all  kinds, 
which  form  by  this  time  an  extensive  literature  in 
themselves.28  The  fatigue  of  this  confused  discus- 
sion is  producing  now  an  effect  somewhat  similar 
to  that  which  the  novelty  of  the  theory  at  first  pro- 
duced. Sj'inpathies  and  antipathies,  convictions 
which,  however  well-founded,  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  question,  have  more  weight  than  real 
study  of  the  subject.  Opprobrious  epithets  occa- 
sionally take  the  place  of  arguments.  A  foolish 
timidity  suspects  in  this  attack  upon  the  traditions 
of  two  thousand  years — for  that  seems,  at  first,  the 
tendency  of  Wolfs  ideas — a  connection  with  other 
tendencies  of  the  time,  tendencies  with  which  pure 
historical  research  has  nothing  to  do.  An  aesthetic 
dogmatism  which,  as  we  have  seen,  can  shelter  it- 
self behind  the  names  of  Schiller  and  Goethe  de- 
spises the  barbarous  pedantry  which  cuts  up  great 


18  THE   OKIGIN    OF    THE   HOMERIC    POEMS. 

poetic  creations  into  fragments ;  and  a  frivolity 
which  is  not  ashamed  to  put  on  airs  of  scientific 
omniscience  looks  with  pity  on  the  long-since  re- 
futed paradoxes  of  Wolf.  It  is  impossible,  in  a 
single  lecture  of  popular  character,  to  go  through 
such  an  involved  discussion,  and  it  would  be  un- 
seemly to  urge  in  such  a  form  one's  personal  views 
on  disputed  points.  But  it  may  be  possible  to 
show  on  what  grounds  the  whole  question  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  Homeric  poems  is  justified— what 
are  the  means  for  its  solution,  and  within  what 
narrow  limits  the  matters  still  in  dispute  between 
the  opposed  parties  have  been  restricted.  These 
are  the  questions  which  will  now  occupy  us. 

"  He  who  doubts  that  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  es- 
sentially in  their  present  form,  are  the  work  of  one 
poet,  and  that  poet  Homer,  each  originally  a  single 
mental  product,  is  in  conflict  with  the  unanimous 
conviction  of  all  antiquity.  How  can  any  one, 
separated  by  thousands  of  j-ears  from  the  period  of 
the  poems,  possessing  only  scanty  remains  of  so 
abundant  a  literature,  be  so  foolish  or  so  daring  as 
to  contradict  the  unanimous  testimony  of  Homer's 
own  nation  ?" 


T1IE    ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  19 

This  idea,  expressed  in  manifold  forms,  excludes 
from  the  start  all  question  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
Homeric  poems  as  unwarranted  and  inadmissible. 
It  would  have  great  weight  if  only  it  were  quite 
true.  Such  a  Homer,  however,  the  author  of  these 
two  poems,  belonging,  as  any  actual  person  must, 
to  a  definite  time  and  a  definite  place,  though  he 
has  gradually  won  a  position  in  manuals  of  history, 
yet  is  not  directly  attested  by  any  real  historic  doc- 
ument. Let  us  see  what  is  the  real  content  of  tra- 
dition as  to  the  principal  points  in  regard  to  Homer 
and  the  Homeric  poems.29 

The  ancient  Greeks  possessed,  besides  the  Iliad 
and  Odyssey,  a  number  of  other  epic  poems  of  some 
extent  connected  with  the  Trojan  myths,30  which 
were  concerned  with  parts  of  the  legend  preceding 
and  following  these  two  poems.  The  existence  of 
this  body  of  epic  poetry  can  be  traced  back  to  a  con- 
siderable distance  beyond  the  beginning  of  the  Greek 
national  life.31  Of  it  all  we  possess  now  but  a  few 
fragments,  with  some  summaries  of  the  narratives 
and  other  notices ;  yet  there  are  enough  data  not 
only  to  bring  before  us  the  great  extent  of  the  epic 
poetry  on  the  Trojan  theme,  but  also  to  enable  us 


20  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

to  recognize  the  fact  that  these  other  poems,  though 
related  to  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  are  distinguished 
from  them  by  characteristic  differences.32  In  regard 
to  every  one  of  these  outlying  Trojan  epics,  there 
exists  a  tradition  uniform  as  to  the  place  of  origi- 
nation, and  uniform,  or  in  some  cases  varying  be- 
tween two  names,  as  to  the  name  of  the  author.33 
Moreover,  the  time  of  composition  belongs  to  a 
period  not  far  removed  from  the  light  of  historic 
knowledge.  In  spite  of  all  this,  these  poems,  to- 
gether with  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  are  sometimes 
ascribed  to  Homer.  Homer  is  regarded  as  the  au- 
thor not  only  of  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  but,  besides, 
of  the  other  Trojan  epics,  either  of  most  of  them 
or  of  all ;  or  even  of  all  these  and  of  the  so-called 
Homeric  hymns  to  the  gods  besides.  This  com- 
prehensive meaning  is  given  to  the  name  of  Homer 
not  only  by  those  who  were  little  in  sympathy  with 
the  intellectual  spirit  and  literature  of  the  Greek 
people,  but  also  by  men  whose  statement  is  to  us 
unquestioned  authority.34  The  idea  of  limiting  Ho- 
mer's authorship  to  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey  alone  is 
held  by  only  an  individual  here  and  there  in  the 
classical  time;  it  does  not  become  an  established 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  21 

belief  until,  in  the  third  century  before  Christ,  Al- 
exandria becomes  the  centre  of  Greek  learning 
and  culture.35  This  belief  is  therefore  the  result  of 
study,  which  did  not  reach  definite  conclusion  un- 
til some  five  hundred  years  had  passed  since  the 
Iliad  was  a  completed  work.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  direct  historical  testimony  of  the  classical  pe- 
riod ascribes  to  Homer  works  of  such  extent  and 
such  widely  differing  character  that  even  the  bold- 
est fancy  might  well  hesitate  to  attribute  them  to 
a  single  man. 

When,  then,  and  where  did  this  incomparable 
genius  live?  It  is  a  well-known  story,  embalmed 
in  several  Greek  epigrams,36  that  seven  cities  con- 
tended for  the  honor  of  having  been  Homer's  birth- 
place. Another  Greek  epigram  gives  the  happy 
poetical  solution  of  the  puzzle,  that  no  spot  on 
earth,  but  heaven  itself,  is  his  true  fatherland;37 
but  the  historical  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  not 
at  all  furthered  by  this  ingenious  suggestion.  For 
the  numerous  birthplaces  of  Homer  are  not  mere- 
ly poetic  fancy,  but  in  sober  prose  we  find  a  still 
greater  number  of  claimants ;  among  them  Smyr- 
na, Kolophon,  and  Miletus  on  the  coast  of  Asia 


22  THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE    HOMERIC   POEMS. 

.Minor;  Athens  in  Greece  proper;  los,  Chios,  Ky- 
pros,  and  Krete  among  the  islands.  And  always, no 
matter  how  late  in  time  the  statement  is  made,38 
some  unexceptionable  ancient  authority  is  given 
for  it,  so  that  we  have  absolutely  no  right  to  rank 
the  claim  of  one  place  clearly  above  that  of  anoth- 
er. Moreover,  as  to  most  of  the  places  which 
claimed  to  be  his  birthplace,  we  find  the  further 
statement  that  there  was  a  school  there  for  the  cul- 
tivation of  epic  poetry,  associated  by  the  tradition 
of  art  from  generation  to  generation  into  a  sort  of 
family.39  The  tradition  of  such  schools  of  poets 
exists,  also,  in  the  case  of  other  places,  as  to  which 
the  statement  that  Homer  was  born  or  resided  there 
may  perhaps  be  only  accidentally  lost  to  us.40  And 
when  did  Homer  live  ?  We  should  not  be  sur- 
prised to  find  in  so  unhistorical  a  period  an  uncer- 
tainty of  some  fifty  or  a  hundred  years ;  but  when 
the  statements  as  to  the  time  of  his  life  ransre  from 

O 

the  period  of  the  Greek  migrations  to  Asia  Minor — 
that  is,  about  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century — 
down  to  the  last  third  of  the  seventh  century  before 
Christ,  and  when  all  the  statements  fixing  different 
points  in  this  long  period  go  back  to  authorities 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC    POEMS.  23 

among  which  we  cannot  give  any  decided  prefer- 
ence to  one  over  another,41  then  we  recognize  that 
we  have  to  do  with  something  more  than  the  mere 
chronological  inaccuracy  of  an  early  age.  Accord- 
ing to  these  accounts,  Homer's  life  falls  anywhere 
within  a  period  of  more  than  four  hundred  years, 
and  that  during  a  time  marked  by  the  most  exten- 
sive changes  in  the  social  condition  of  the  Greeks 
on  both  sides  of  the  Aegean  Sea.  For  this  variation 
in  regard  to  the  place  and  the  time  of  Homer's  life,42 
the  real  historical  significance  has  been  determined 
by  a  recent  investigation,  in  which  one  can  hardly 
tell  whether  to  admire  most  the  self-evident  sim- 
plicity of  the  main  idea,  or  the  merciless  rigor  of 
the  historical  argument.43  It  is  this :  Every  state- 
ment as  to  time  belongs  to  the  tradition  of  a  particu- 
lar locality.  Thus  the  birth  of  Homer,  according 
to  the  tradition  of  Smyrna,  falls  in  the  middle  of  the 
eleventh  century  ;  according  to  that  of  Chios,  about 
two  generations  later,  or  the  beginning  of  the  tenth 
century ;  according  to  that  of  Samos,  in  the  ninth 
century ;  and  so  on.  Also  to  the  ninth  century  be- 
longed, according  to  Samian  tradition  and  to  He- 
rodotus,44 the  residence  of  Homer  at  Samos  and  the 


24:  THE   OEIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC    POEMS. 

founding  of  the  school  of  poets  there ;  whereas  the 
latter  event  at  Chios,  according  to  Chian  tradition, 
fell  at  the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century.  If,  now, 
the  name  Homer,  as  has  been  shown,  is  made  to 
bear  all  the  epic  poetry  of  the  Trojan  circle  of 
myths;  if  this  Homer  is  reported  as  born  at  differ- 
ent points  in  the  Greek  world  during  a  period  of 
more  than  four  centuries ;  if  in  each  instance  there 
is  connected  with  his  birth  or  residence  in  a  given 
locality  the  story  of  the  rise  of  a  school  of  epic 
poetry  in  the  same  locality,  then  for  any  one  who 
does  not  allow  himself  to  accept  or  to  reject  any 
of  these  facts  by  itself  the  conclusion  is  irresistible. 
The  statements  as  to  Homer's  birth  at  different 
places  and  at  different  times  are  really  statements 
as  to  the  beginning  of  epic  poetry  in  the  several 
localities.  The  sequence  of  dates  and  places  yields 
a  history  of  the  spread  of  such  poetry  over  the 
western  coast  of  Asia  Minor  and  among  the  islands. 
The  order  in  which  Smyrna,  Chios,  Kolophon,  and 
so  on  to  the  remote  Kypros  and  Krete,  arrange 
themselves  according  to  the  succession  of  the  re- 
spective traditions  of  time,  corresponds  to  the  geo- 
graphical position  or  the  political  relations  of  the 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMEJRIC   POEMS.  25 

several  places,  and  so  furnishes  an  unsought  con- 
firmation of  this  theory.45 

To  these  historical  data  in  regard  to  the  person 
of  Homer  let  us  now  add  the  facts  which  are  es- 
tablished as  to  the  poems,  without  reference  to  the 
name  of  their  author. 

The  Iliad  and  Odyssey  were  not  originally  com- 
mitted to  writing,  but  orally  delivered.  All  the 
attacks  made  upon  this  proposition  since  Wolf 
first  proved  it  have  only  served  to  establish  its 
truth  more  firmly.46  The  poems  themselves,  by 
their  form  and  contents,  make  it  probable.  No- 
where do  we  find  in  the  narrative  of  the  poems  or 
in  the  numerous  similes  the  slightest  hint  of  the 
existence  of  the  art  of  writing,  not  even  where 
there  was  natural  occasion  for  mention  of  it.47  The 
language  also,  in  its  power  of  adapting  itself  to  the 
metre  by  lengthening  and  shortening,  separating 
and  contracting,  the  vowels,  shows  a  flexibility  that 
is  incomparably  more  natural  for  the  spoken  word 
than  for  the  word  fixed  in  a  given  form  by  writ- 
ing.48 But  the  supposition  that  is  thus  made  high- 
ly probable  becomes  certain  from  other  considera- 
tions. In  the  eighth  century  before  Christ,  the  Hi- 


26  THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC   POEMS. 

ad  was  already  a  completed  work,  as  appears  from 
the  fact  that  other  epics  composed  at  that  time  by 
the  limitations  of  their  own  subject-matter  recog- 
nize the  limits  of  that  of  the  Iliad  as  already  set- 
tled.49 It  is  not  until  a  full  century  later  that  we 
find  the  first  beginnings  of  the  use  among  the 
Greeks  of  the  art  of  writing,  and  then  it  is  for  the 
recording  of  laws.50  But  from  the  use  of  writing 
to  record  the  brief  formulas  of  ancient  laws  to  the 
use  of  it  for  long  poems  is  a  progress  involving  so 
many  indispensable  steps  as  to  require  a  very  long 
time.  Poems  so  long  as  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 
— one  16,000,  the  other  12,000  lines — are  not  writ- 
ten down,  so  long  as  the  habit  of  hearing  them  re- 
cited is  universal  and  there  is  no  hope  of  their 
finding  readers.  The  preservation  of  these  poems, 
by  oral  tradition  only,  for  a  couple  of  centuries, 
which  in  itself  is  not  without  a  parallel  in  the  his- 
tory of  epic  poetry,51  is  in  this  case  the  less  surpris- 
ing by  reason  of  the  historical  fact  that  there  were 
schools  of  poets  who  made  it  their  business  to  cul- 
tivate epic  poetry,  and  to  recite  and  transmit  the 
heroic  songs  of  their  ancestors. 

The  earliest  well-authenticated  case  of  the  com- 


THE   ORIGIN    OF    THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  27 

mission  of  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey  to  writing  oc- 
curred at  Athens  in  the  latter  half  of  the  sixth 
century  before  Christ,  when  the  work  was  done  by 
a  committee  organized  by  Peisistratos.62  That  this 
was  the  first  time  that  the  whole  of  the  poems  was 
written  down  may  be  clearly  inferred  from  the 
form  and  character  of  the  numerous  statements  in 
regard  to  it.  If  it  had  been  only  a  combination 
and  connection  of  written  copies  previously  exist- 
ing, it  would  never  have  been,  as  it  now  is,  cele- 
brated as  an  important  event,  as  the  accomplish- 
ment of  a  difficult  task.  And  surely  the  ordinance 
of  Solon,  before  the  time  of  Peisistratos,  directing 
the  succession  in  the  delivery  of  the  Homeric  songs 
at  the  great  Panathenaic  festival  at  Athens  would 
have  taken  a  different  form  if  he  could  have  re- 
ferred to  existing  written  copies. 

After  Peisistratos,  and  more  especially  after  the 
end  of  the  fifth  century  before  Christ,  when  the 
love  of  reading  became  more  general,  copies  of  the 
Iliad  were  multiplied.53  Certain  cities  had  their 
own  copies,  which  were  probably  the  local  test  of 
the  accuracy  of  the  festival  declamations.  Alex- 
ander the  Great  held  his  copy  in  great  honor,  and 


28  THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

set  apart  a  jewelled  casket  from  his  Persian  booty 
to  keep  it  in.  The  form  given  to  the  poems  under 
Peisistratos,  when  corrected  of  some  errors  that  had 
subsequently  crept  in,  was  what  the  Alexandrian 
scholars  of  the  third  century  before  Christ  aimed 
to  restore,54  and  our  modern  editions  strive  to  re- 
produce, as  nearly  as  possible,  the  text  as  they  de- 
termined it.55 

Now  let  us  take  together  in  one  view  the  points 
thus  historically  settled.  The  Iliad  and  Odyssey 
were  orally  circulated  for  two  centuries  before  they 
were  put  into  written  form.  The  prevalent  opin- 
ion among  the  Greeks  in  the  classical  time  made 
Homer  the  author  not  only  of  the  Iliad  and  Odys- 
sey, but  the  originator  of  all  their  epic  poetry,  or 
at  least  all  that  pertained  to  the  Trojan  circle  of 
myths.  The  traditions  in  regard  to  his  life  give 
no  story  of  an  individual  existence  connected  with 
a  definite  time  and  place,  but  assume  the  shape 
of  items  as  to  the  gradual  spread  of  epic  poetry 
among  those  Greek  cities  and  tribes  which  chiefly 
cultivated  it.  The  question  whether  the  Iliad  and 
Odyssey  proceeded  from  the  spontaneous  concep- 
tion of  a  single  poet,  or  were  formed  by  putting 


THE    ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  29 

together  the  separate  songs  of  one  or  of  several 
poets,  is  not  touched  at  all  by  these  traditions,  for 
either  supposition  is  reconcilable  with  the  histor- 
ical facts  yielded  by  them.  There  is,  however, 
one  result  gained  by  examining  them,  and  that  is, 
that  the  answer  to  this  question  is  shown  to  be  en- 
tirely apart  from  any  supposed  historical  evidence. 
If  any  one  is  constrained,  by  arguments  of  another 
kind,  to  hold  that  the  Homeric  poems  are  not  orig- 
inal units,  but  combinations  of  separate  songs  or 
enlargements  of  simpler  poems,  no  one  can  charge 
him  with  defying  the  testimony  of  a  sure  and  well- 
defined  tradition.  The  answer  to  the  question  be- 
tween original  unity  and  subsequent  combination 
can  be  sought  only  in  the  poems  themselves. 

In  the  poems  themselves. ,56  That  sounds  very 
well  as  a  theoiy,  but  in  practical  application  it  may 
be  very  likely  to  amount  to  leaving  the  decision  to 
personal  temperament  and  subjective  inclination. 
We  have  just  seen  how  men  of  the  most  cultivated 
judgment  in  the  sphere  of  poetry,  who  undoubt- 
edly formed  their  opinion  solely  from  the  poems 
themselves,  came  to  the  most  opposite  conclusions. 
And,  indeed,  may  it  not  be  impossible  to  determine, 


30  THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

in  regard  to  poems  of  so  remote  an  age,  what  degree 
of  self -consistency  the}7  ought  to  have  in  order  to 
prove  their  original  unity?57  Such  considerations 
must  certainly  inspire  us  with  caution,  but  the  fact 
of  differences  of  opinion  ought  not  to  make  us  de- 
spair of  reaching  a  satisfactory  conclusion  by  going 
to  the  bottom  of  the  subject ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  in  the  case  of  poems  as  long  as  the  Iliad  and 
Odyssey,  a  comparison  of  their  several  parts  as  to 
subject  and  form  furnishes  a  standard  of  consist- 
ency which  restricts  very  narrowly  the  caprices  of 
individual  judgments.  It  will  be  my  endeavor  to 
show  that,  in  virtue  of  these  things,  a  tenable  opin- 
ion can  be  formed,  and  has  been  in  part  already 
settled.  Let  us  look  first  at  the  Iliad. 

The  series  of  transactions  and  incidents  which 
the  Iliad  presents  to  our  imagination  is  so  con- 
nected together  as  to  be  easily  embraced  in  one 
view.  It  is  the  tenth  year  of  the  siege,  and  the 
Achaean  army  is  still  striving  to  overthrow  Troy 
in  revenge  for  the  outrage  committed  by  Paris. 
Then  it  happens  that  their  bravest  hero,  Achilles, 
is  wounded  in  his  honor  by  Agamemnon,  the  lead- 
er of  the  host,  and  resolves  to  avenge  himself  for 


THE   OKIGIN   OF   THE   HOMEKIC   POEMS.  31 

the  insult  by  keeping  aloof  from  the  battle-field. 
His  goddess-mother,  Thetis,  asks  and  obtains  from 
Zeus  the  promise  that  the  Achaean,  army  shall  have 
disasters  until  Agamemnon  repents  and  atones  for 
the  wrong  he  has  done.  For  a  time  the  valor  of 
the  other  Achaean  chiefs  maintains  the  balance 
against  the  Trojans,  but  presently  they  are  at  such 
a  disadvantage  that  Agamemnon  sends  an  embas- 
sy of  the  noblest  chiefs  to  beg  forgiveness  of  Achil- 
les and  offer  him  full  compensation.  But  his  thirst 
for  revenge  is  not  yet  satisfied ;  the  woes  of  the 
Greeks  must  be  yet  greater;  the  Trojans  must 
force  their  way  into  the  camp,  begin  to  burn  the 
ships,  and  thus  threaten  them  with  complete  de- 
struction, ere  he  will  lay  aside  his  wrath  and  come 
forth  from  his  retirement.  The  very  next  day 
brings  matters  to  this  extremity.  The  bravest  of 
the  Achaean  leaders  are  wounded  and  forced  to 
leave  the  field.  Hektor  breaks  through  the  wall 
of  the  Greek  camp,  and  the  resistance  of  the  mighty 
Ajax  cannot  prevent  his  setting  fire  to  one  of  the 
ships.  Then  Patroklos,  the  trusty  companion-in- 
arms of  Achilles,  beseeches  him  in  this  crisis  of 
need,  if  he  will  not  go  out  himself,  at  least  to  allow 


32  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

him  and  the  host  of  the  Myrmidons  to  take  part  in 
the  battle.  This  only  he  consents  to  do.  By  the 
successes  that  attend  his  unexpected  appearance  on 
the  field,  Patroklos  is  so  carried  away  that  he  for- 
gets the  strict  command  of  Achilles,  and  lets  him- 
self be  drawn  on  from  defence  of  the  camp  to  an 
attack  upon  the  Trojan  army.  In  pressing  the  at- 
tack he  is  slain,  and  it  is  only  with  great  effort  that 
his  body,  stripped  of  its  armor,  is  rescued  from  the 
eager  foe.  At  the  dreadful  news  of  his  friend's 
death,  Achilles,  late  on  that  day,  comes  forth,  and 
by  his  mere  presence  checks  the  renewed  onset  of 
the  Trojans.  The  next  morning  Agamemnon  gives 
Achilles  a  full  compensation  for  the  wrong  done 
him,  and  Achilles,  burning  with  desire  to  avenge 
the  death  of  his  beloved  friend,  dismisses  his  anger 
at  Agamemnon.  In  the  now  renewed  conflict  he 
takes  his  revenge.  Many  Trojans  fall  before  him, 
and,  last  of  all,  Hektor,  who  alone  dared  to  meet  his 
attack,  and  who  alone  was  the  hope  of  the  Trojan 
cause.  The  burial  of  Patroklos,  the  funeral  games 
in  his  honor,  the  return  of  the  body  of  Hektor  to 
his  aged  father,  and  the  lament  of  the  Trojans  over 
it,  bring  the  poem  to  a  close. 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  33 

This  hasty  sketch  will  suffice  to  recall  to  any  one 
acquainted  with  the  Iliad  the  main  outline  of  the 
poem.  One  cannot  thus  bring  it  up  to  mind  with- 
out being  impressed  with  the  manifest  interlink- 
ing of  the  parts,  the  restriction  of  the  story  with- 
in well-chosen  limits,  the  grouping  of  the  whole 
around  a  common  centre.  But  in  recent  times 
the  admiration  of  this  poem  has  gone  a  step  far- 
ther, and  made  the  discovery  that  the  whole  Iliad  is 
guided  and  controlled  by  one  fundamental  thought, 
one  leading  idea,58  which  is  thus  stated : 

"The  wrath  of  Achilles  is  fully  justified  and 
right,  and  the  supreme  Governor  of  the  world 
himself  assures  to  it  its  satisfaction ;  but  then  the 
man's  passion  pushes  his  wrath,  right  as  it  is  in 
itself,  to  an  undue  excess.  When  he  rejects  the 
offered  reconciliation,  Achilles  makes  himself  lia- 
ble to  punishment,  and  by  the  death  of  his  dearest 
friend  pays  the  penalty  of  his  excessive  wrath." 

Who  would  deny  that  the  succession  of  actions 
and  events  presented  in  the  Iliad  is  perfect!}'  adapt- 
ed to  convey  this  sound  ethical  doctrine  ?  Who 
could  fail  to  recognize  that  a  sort  of  national  in- 
stinct made  due  moderation  a  necessary  condition, 

3 


34:  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

in  the  view  of  the  Greeks  in  all  ages,  of  the  high- 
est moral  goodness  and  nobleness  ?  But  the  ques- 
tion is  a  very  different  one,  whether  in  the  Iliad 
as  we  have  it  and  the  ancients  had  it,  be  it  one 
poem  or  a  combination  of  originally  diverse  ele- 
ments— whether  in  this  Iliad  we  find  this  idea  set 
forth  as  the  controlling  idea,  or  anything  to  justify 
us  in  reading  it  between  the  lines  ?  To  this  ques- 
tion we  must  certainly  answer,  No.  It  is  not  from 
the  consideration  of  justice  that  Zeus  promises  the 
fullest  satisfaction  to  the  wrath  of  Achilles,  but  he 
owes  gratitude  to  Thetis  for  previous  benefits,  and 
Thetis  makes  these  benefits  tell  so  as  to  secure  the 
assent  of  Zeus  to  her  request.59  The  rejection  by 
Achilles  of  the  offers  of  friendship  does  not  con- 
stitute a  turning-point  in  the  action  of  the  poem. 
There  is  no  subsequent  reference  to  it,  even  where 
there  is  the  strongest  reason  for  one;60  and  Zeus, 
without  the  slightest  hint  of  disapproval  of  the 
implacability  of  Achilles,  maintains  unaltered  his 
promise  to  avenge  him  by  the  increasing  woes  of 
the  Greeks.61  In  the  death  of  Patroklos,  no  one  of 
gods  or  men  detects  a  penalty  for  the  excessive 
wrath  of  Achilles.  He  falls  by  the  attack  of  a  deity 


THE   OKIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  35 

friendly  to  the  Trojans,  and  because  he  transgressed 
the  strict  command  of  Achilles  as  to  the  limits  of 
his  taking  part  in  the  contest.  Thus  we  see  that 
at  every  important  point  of  the  action  not  only  do 
we  fail  to  find  that  motive  suggested  which  we 
ought  to  find  on  this  theory,  but  another  motive, 
essentially  different  and  irreconcilable  with  that,  is 
employed.  In  truth,  one  has  to  get  away  from  the 
Iliad,  and  strive  to  forget  what  is  really  contained 
in  it,  before  he  can  venture  to  impose  upon  the 
poem  as  it  is  a  thought  which  might  be  the  ruling 
thought  of  the  whole. 

But,  again,  the  most  serious  difficulties  arise  as 
to  the  mere  continuity  of  connection  in  the  narra- 
tive so  soon  as  we  descend  from  general  outlines  to 
particular  details.  So  far  as  these  depend  on  va- 
riation of  tone  and  style,  it  is  useless  to  try  to  give 
an  idea  of  them.62  They  do  not  appear  in  the  Ger- 
man translation,  which,  excellent  as  it  is,  spreads  a 
uniform  tone  over  the  whole.  So,  also,  of  other 
grounds  of  suspicion,  although  as  depending  on 
the  subject-matter  they  must  appear  in  any  ver- 
sion, yet  one  can  hardly  give  an  idea  of  their  num- 
ber and  the  way  they  are  inwrought  in  the  whole 


36  THE   OEIGIN    OF    THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

structure  of  the  poem  without  going  minutely 
through  the  whole.  Still,  perhaps,  in  some  exam- 
ples the  kind  of  doubt  they  raise  may  be  so  far  in- 
dicated as  to  show  whether  they  are  such  as  to  jus- 
tify positive  inferences.  Such  cases  as  this,  that 
the  same  warrior  is  killed  on  different  days  by  dif- 
ferent foes,  may  be  regarded  as  of  little  conse- 
quence.63 They  occur  only  in  regard  to  inferior 
persons,  and  such  contradictions  in  a  long  poem 
may  be  explained  by  failure  of  memory,  even  on 
the  supposition  of  single  authorship.  But  other 
things  go  deeper  into  the  course  of  the  main  inci- 
dents. The  larger  part  of  the  Iliad  is  taken  up 
with  the  particular  narrative  of  the  events  of  three 
days  of  conflict.  The  first,  favorable  throughout 
to  the  Greek  army  without  the  help  of  Achilles, 
extends  from  the  second  book  nearly  to  the  end  of 
the  seventh ;  the  second  daty,  which  contains  the 
extreme  peril  of  the  Greeks,  the  exploits  and  death 
of  Patroklos,  and  finally  the  sudden  appearance  of 
Achilles  on  the  field,  begins  in  the  eleventh  and 
ends  in  the  eighteenth  book ;  the  third,  containing 
the  vengeance  of  Achilles  and  the  death  of  Hek- 
tor,  covers  books  xx,  xxi,  and  xxii.  If  now  we 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  37 

undertake  to  make  clear  to  ourselves  the  incidents 
of  the  second  and  most  important  day,  we  stumble 
at  every  step  against  the  greatest  difficulties.  The 
narrative  goes  quickly  over  the  beginning  of  the 
conflict.  After  only  eighty  lines  we  are  told  that 
so  long  as  the  sun  was  ascending  the  fortune  of 
the  battle  was  undeckled,  but  that  from  mid-day 
on  the  scale  was  turned.  And  then,  after  we  have 
followed  through  five  books  the  most  varied  shift- 
ings  of  the  contest,  and  have  been  told  of  incidents 
requiring  considerable  time — the  battle  about  the 
wall  of  the  Greek  camp,  and  the  storming  of  its 
gate  against  vigorous  defence ;  the  help  given  by 
Poseidon  to  the  Greeks ;  Hera's  preparations  for  a 
trick  upon  Zens,  and  her  success  in  beguiling  him 
to  sleep,  in  order  that  Poseidon  may  work  on  unin- 
terrupted; the  awakening  of  Zeus,  and  the  help  he 
sends  to  the  Trojans ;  the  turning  of  their  retreat 
into  an  attack;  the  struggle  around  the  ship  of 
Ajax ;  the  appeal  of  Patroklos  to  Achilles  for  leave 
to  rescue  the  Greeks ;  the  arming  of  Patroklos  and 
the  Myrmidons,  and  a  large  part  of  the  exploits  of 
Patroklos — after  all  this  has  been  told,  in  more 
than  4000  lines,  then  we  hear  again  that  it  is 


38  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

mid-day  and  the  sun  standing  high  in  heaven.6* 
We  may,  if  we  please,  cut  out  ever  so  much  of 
what  lies  between  these  two  statements,  as  being  a 
subsequent  enlargement  of  a  skilfully  constructed 
original  narrative.  But  we  gain  nothing  by  that; 
for,  in  any  case,  the  development  of  the  struggle 
which  causes  the  appearance  of  Patroklos,  and  a 
great  part  of  his  achievements,  have  no  time  allowed 
for  them,  for  they  occur  between  two  distinct  indi- 
cations of  the  same  hour.  In  another  point  of 
view,  there  is  a  difficulty  as  to  the  appearance  of 
Patroklos  on  the  field.  When  the  battle  is  turning 
against  the  Greeks  in  the  eleventh  book,  Patro- 
klos is  sent  out  by  Achilles  to  learn  the  name  of 
a  wounded  man  whom  they  see  Nestor  carrying 
away  in  his  chariot.  Patroklos  is  in  such  a  hurry 
to  perform  the  command  of  his  impatient  chief 
that  lie  refuses  to  sit  down  in  Nestor's  tent.  But 
this  haste  is  forgotten ;  for  while  the  Greek  wall  is 
stormed  by  Hektor,  and  while  the  fortunes  of  war 
are  chano-ino-  back  and  forth  through  four  lonsr 

O        O  O  O 

books,  Patroklos  remains  seated  in  quiet  conversa- 
tion in  the  tent  of  a  Greek  chieftain.65  Nay,  more 
than  this,  when  he  finally,  in  the  sixteenth  book,  re- 


TUP:   OKIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  39 

turns  to  Achilles,  not  a  word  is  said  of  an  answer  to 
the  question  of  Achilles,  nor,  indeed,  of  his  having 
been  sent  on  the  errand.66  Similar  discrepancies 
we  find  in  the  course  of  the  whole  narrative,  lively 
and  vivid  as  it  is  in  the  details.  In  closely  con- 
nected passages  we  find  different  representations  of 
the  condition  of  the  battle,  of  its  form,  of  its  local- 
ity.67 The  entrance  of  the  same  person,  Poseidon, 
at  the  same  time  into  the  conflict  is  twice  described, 
and  in  ways  irreconcilable  with  each  other.68  Zens 
utters  on  the  same  day  two  incompatible  prophe- 
cies of  the  immediate  future.69  As  to  the  death  of 
one  hero,  Patroklos,  we  receive  two  inconsistent 
accounts  in  close  connection.70  As  we  read,  we  are 
carried  along  by  the  naturalness  and  vigor  of  the 
successive  pictures,  but  the  effort  to  hold  one  con- 
tinuous thread  through  them,  to  grasp  a  unity  in 
the  narrative,  such  as  it  must  have  even  if  only  re- 
cited, so  that  the  hearers  should  understand  and 
see  the  incidents  in  imagination — this  effort  fails 
utterly.  We  find  ourselves  in  a  mighty  concourse 
of  tumultuous  waves,  where  it  is  impossible  to  stand 
firmly.71 

Very  different  is  the  impression  made  by  the 


40  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

story  of  the  first  day  of  conflict  in  books  ii-vii. 
There,  with  very  slight  exceptions,  we  enjoy  the 
clear  light  of  a  transparent  narrative.  What  read- 
er of  the  Iliad  would  not  recall  with  lively  admi- 
ration the  charming  passage  of  the  view  from  the 
walls  of  Troy,  with  its  happy  delineations  of  Hel- 
en, Priam,  and  the  Greek  heroes;  the  exquisite  de- 
scription of  the  shooting  of  the  arrow  of  Panda- 
ros,  the  beauty  of  which  Lessing  has  so  clearly 
analyzed  ;72  the  splendid  story  of  the  exploits  of 
Diomedes,  and  then  the  peaceful  episode  between 
him  and  Glaukos,  who  meet  as  foes,  but  recognize 
each  other  as  connected  by  hereditary  ties  of  hos- 
pitality, and  separate  with  mutual  gifts ;  finally, 
the  parting  of  Hektor  and  Andromache,  a  scene 
often  imitated,  but  not  easily  surpassed  in  the 
touching  power  of  its  simple  naturalness  ?  But 
the  beauty  of  these  separate  scenes,  which  makes 
it  hard  to  tell  which  one  is  the  most  delightful,  is 
quite  equalled  by  the  difficulty  of  combining  them 
into  one  story.73  The  mass  of  the  incidents  threat- 
ens at  the  very  outset  to  overwhelm  us,  when  we 
recollect  that  they  are  to  be  supposed  to  occur 
within  a  single  day;  and  then  we  find  it,  in  almost 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  41 

every  case,  impossible  to  discover  the  internal  link 
between  any  two  of  them.  We  have  a  stately  pict- 
ure of  the  arming  of  the  Greek  host,  and  then  a 
roster  of  the  whole  Greek  force  down  to  the  minor 
chiefs,  occupying  some  400  lines.  Everything  indi- 
cates the  beginning  of  a  grand  general  conflict,  and 
then  follows — a  truce,  and  a  single  combat  between 
Paris  and  Menelaos.74  The  agreement,  sanctioned 
by  a  sacrifice  and  solemnly  sealed  by  oaths,  that  if 
Menalaos  is  victor  in  this  duel,  Helen  and  the  treas- 
ure taken  with  her  shall  be  given  up,  is  wantonly 
broken  by  the  Trojans ;  and  on  the  same  day,  with 
the  slightest  possible  reference  to  that  former  duel, 
Hektor  challenges  any  of  the  Greek  chiefs  to  a 
second  one,  without  proposing  that  it  shall  decide 
so  much.  Still  the  Greeks  accept  his  challenge, 
and  utter  no  reproaches  over  the  former  breach 
of  faith.  Moreover,  on  the  very  day  on  which  the 
previous  duel  has  resulted  in  favor  of  their  cham- 
pion, and  on  which,  too,  the  general  contest  has 
brought  the  Trojans  into  extreme  distress,  the 
bravest  Greek  chiefs  dread  to  enter  this  single 
combat,  and  have  to  be  aroused  from  their  conster- 
nation by  Nestor's  reproaches.75  Even  Diomedes, 


42  THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

who  on  that  very  day  lias  undertaken  and  trium- 
phantly carried  on  a  combat  with  Ares  himself,  is 
now  among  the  terror-stricken.  It  is  true,  his  cour- 
age has  already  before  this,  in  some  unexplained 
way,  abandoned  him.  Immediately  after  he  has, 
with  valor  inspired  by  Athene,  vanquished  and  driv- 
en from  the  field  Aphrodite  and  Ares,  we  find  him 
meeting  Glaukos,  whom  he  does  not  know,  and  ask- 
ing with  pious  anxiety  whether  it  may  not  be  a  god 
who  confronts  him,  for  with  gods  a  mortal  must 
not  venture  to  contend.76 

But  I  will  not  go  on  with  the  list  of  such  contra- 
dictions, tempting  as  is  the  abundance  of  material. 
It  is  impossible  to  fairly  present  here  the  number 
of  difficulties  which  arise  in  the  two  parts  of  the 
Iliad  of  which  I  have  spoken,  which  make  up  about 
a  half  of  the  whole  poem.  My  only  purpose  has 
been  to  bring  to  your  view,  by  some  easily  pre- 
sented examples,  the  character  and  importance  of 
them.  Whoever  wishes  a  confirmation  from  with- 
out of  the  gravity  of  these  inconsistencies  should 
seek  it,  not  in  the  writings  of  those  who  have  con- 
vincingly set  them  forth,77  but  rather  in  those  of 
their  adversaries,  who,  in  order  to  maintain  the 


TIIE   ORIGIN    OF   THE    HOMERIC    POEMS.  43 

miity  of  the  Iliad,  labor  to  invalidate  the  grounds 
of  suspicion.78  The  devices  of  interpretation  and 
involved  hypotheses  by  which  they  seek  to  seem  to 
reconcile  irreconcilable  contradictions,79  form  the 
strongest  proof  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  doubts 
as  to  the  original  unity  of  the  poem,  and  justify 
the  simple  inference  drawn  from  them.  When  a 
poem  like  the  Iliad  presents,  sometimes  through 
two  hundred  lines,  and  sometimes  through  nearly 
a  thousand,  one  scene  and  set  of  characters  with 
strict  consistency,  even  in  the  minutest  details  of 
the  vivid  delineations,  and  then  in  the  very  next 
lines  passes  on  to  the  assumption  of  a  different 
scene  and  a  different  disposition  in  the  actors — 
when  this  kind  of  inconsistency,  varying  in  degree, 
runs  through  the  whole  poem,  and  everywhere 
shows  itself,  not  within  single  narrations,  but  only 
in  the  combination  of  these  into  one  whole;80  in 
such  a  case  we  find  ourselves  compelled  to  con- 
clude that  those  single  narratives  were  originally 
separate,  and  that  the  combining  of  them  was  a 
subsequent  process.  The  narrative  of  Diomedec' 
conversation  with  Glaukos  is,  in  its  way,  as  admira- 
ble as  that  of  his  exploits  in  war,  but  as  a  conthm- 


44  THE   ORIGIN   OF   TIIE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

ation  of  these  it  cannot  Lave  belonged  to  the  orig- 
inal conception  and  composition  of  the  poem. 
Hektor's  challenge  to  a  single  combat,  the  dread 
of  the  Greek  chiefs  to  engage  with  him,  the  bravest 
of  the  Trojans,  Nestor's  reproaches  and  exhorta- 
tions— all  this  is  very  well  told ;  but  as  a  scene  of 
the  same  day  on  which  the  Greeks  had  been  cheat- 
ed out  of  the  stakes  of  another  single  combat  (a 
day,  too,  in  which  they  are  everywhere  successful 
in  battle),  such  a  representation  is  impossible. 

Facts  of  this  kind  speak  so  plainly  that  we  can- 
not be  deaf  to  them,  and  attention  to  them  has  al- 
ready brought  about  agreement  on  certain  points 
between  the  two  parties  to  this  discussion.  No 
one  who  really  understands  the  questions  at  issue 
believes  any  longer  in  the  original  independent  ex- 
istence of  a  poet,  called  Homer,  if  you  please,  who 
wrought  up  the  myths  of  his  people  into  the  Iliad.81 
It  is  admitted  by  the  most  decided  and  most  prom- 
inent champions  of  the  theory  of  single  authorship 
that  the  composer  of  the  Iliad  had  before  him  sep- 
arate songs  of  earlier  origin,  that  he  took  them  up 
into  liis  comprehensive  poem  without  material  al- 
terations, and  that  the  contradictions — or,  to  use  a 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC    POEMS.  45 

milder  term,  inequalities — which  we  discover  pro- 
ceed from  this  adoption  and  combination  of  earlier 
songs.82  The  difference  of  opinion  is  limited  now 
substantially  to  these  points :  that  the  defenders  of 
the  unity  of  the  Iliad  assert  the  impossibility  of  sep- 
arating it  into  the  originally  independent  parts;83 
that  they  restrict  as  much  as  they  can  the  amount 
of  such  incorporations  in  proportion  to  the  rest  of 
the  Iliad ;  and  that  they  find  the  true  value  of  the 
Iliad  to  lie,  not  in  the  poetic  beauty  of  single  lays, 
but  in  the  majestic  composition  of  the  whole  poem. 
As  to  the  first  point,  there  is  hardly  room  for  much 
dispute ;  for  the  real  question  is  not  whether  it  is 
possible  in  all,  or  even  in  a  few,  cases  to  mark  off 
the  originally  separate  songs,  but  whether  the  pres- 
ent form  of  the  poem  has  grown  out  of  such  ele- 
ments without  essential  alteration  of  them ;  and  on 
this  point  there  is  agreement  within  certain  limits. 
As  to  the  relative  extent  of  the  incorporated  ele- 
ments and  of  the  new  independently  composed 
Iliad,  the  field  of  controversy  will  be  narrowed  by 
the  further  investigation  of  particular  cases.  The 
third  question,  whether  the  T'alue  and  significance 
of  the  Iliad  is  to  be  seen  in  the  poetry  of  single 


46  TIIE   OKIGIN   OF    THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

scenes  or  in  the  grand  composition  of  the  whole, 
miffht  be  left  untouched  so  far  as  it  is  not  answered 

o 

in  what  has  already  been  said.  But  it  may  be  al- 
lowable, without  undue  influence  from  one's  per- 
sonal opinions,  to  suggest  two  considerations  which 
may  prepare  the  way  for  a  decision.  The  compo- 
sition of  extended  and  elaborately  constructed  epic 
poems,  in  contrast  with  single  songs  containing 
each  the  story  of  a  single  adventure,  marks  un- 
questionably a  great  progress  in  poetic  literature.84 
If,  now,  the  Iliad  was,  as  seems  most  probable,  the 
earliest  composition  of  such  extent  in  the  Greek 
epic  poetry,  then,  even  if  it  is  almost  wholly  a  mere 
patchwork  of  previously  existing  separate  materi- 
als, still  a  high  position  in  the  development  of  the 
Greek  epic  is  due  to  such  a  work  of  compilation. 
But  it  is  a  very  different  question  whether  in  this 
poem,  as  we  now  have  it,  the  chief  value  lies  in  the 
original  elements  or  in  the  architectural  skill  which 
has  made  them  into  one  whole.  On  this  question 
let  one  simple  fact  be  considered.  The  contradic- 
tions in  the  Iliad  are  so  manifest  and  so  absolute 
that  when  once  pointed  out  they  cannot  be  ignored, 
however  one  may  strive  to  make  them  appear  tri- 


THE   OKIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   TOEMS.  47 

fling.  But  if  thousands  of  readers,  from  antiquity 
to  the  present  time,  have  felt  the  elevating  and  in- 
spiring influence  of  the  Homeric  poems  without 
noticing  the  contradictions,  it  would  surely  be  a 
great  mistake  to  ascribe  this  surprising  fact  to  a 
universal  carelessness  in  reading.  "We  should  rath- 
er explain  it  by  the  overpowering  charm  of  the 
separate  pictures,  which  draw  off  the  attention 
from  their  connection  with  one  another.  Goethe's 
praises  of  Homer,  Lessing's  luminous  deductions 
from  him,  all  have  reference  to  the  separate  nar- 
ratives, and  remain  true — yes,  even  gain  in  truth, 
when  we  believe  that  we  have  not  one  continuous 
narrative,  but  some  eighteen  or  twenty  separate 
epic  songs  arranged  together  according  to  the  gen- 
eral course  of  the  incidents. 

We  have  thus  far  turned  our  attention  exclu- 
sively to  the  Iliad ;  let  us  now  in  brief  space  con- 
sider the  Odyssey.  We  might  grant  that  the 
Odyssey  must  be  recognized  as  originating  in  a 
single  poetic  conception,  excluding  altogether  the 
supposition  that  it  was  made  up  of  originally  sep- 
arate materials,  without  thereby  casting  a  doubt 
upon  what  has  been  more  or  less  certainly  deter- 


48  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

mined  with  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  Iliad.  It 
is  quite  possible  that  the  two  poems  which  now 
are  inseparably  united  in  our  eyes,  and  which  all 
antiquity,  too,  referred  to  the  one  all-including 
name  of  Homer,  may  have  differed  essentially  in 
their  real  origin.  Whether  this  is  really  the  case 
is  a  question  on  which  the  conflict  of  opinion  is 
not  at  present  narrowed  down  to  so  small  a  field 
as  in  regard  to  the  Iliad.  The  examination  of  the 
Odyssey  from  this  point  of  view  began  later  than 
that  of  the  Iliad,85  and  so  we  find  within  the  last 
few  decades  scholars  who  decidedly  rejected  the 
belief  in  the  single  authorship  of  the  Iliad  and  yet 
as  decidedly  maintained  a  belief  in  that  of  the 
Odyssey.86  The  investigations  which  questioned  or 
disproved  the  original  unity  of  the  Odyssey  were 
mainly  confined  for  a  long  time  to  single  parts  of 
the  poem,  and  were  conducted  on  the  silent  as- 
sumption that  the  process  of  construction  in  the 
two  poems  was  essentially  the  same.87  Under  these 
circumstances,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  one  cannot,  in 
the  case  of  the  Odyssey,  mark  out  with  the  same 
prospect  of  assent  the  limits  within  which  opin- 
ions are  now  agreed,  and  I  may  be  excused  if  I 


THE   ORIGIN   OF    THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  4:9 

confine  myself  to  a  statement  of  a  few  principal 
points  of  view. 

The  arguments  for  original  unity  of  authorship 
in  the  Odyssey  are  not  only  the  well-judged  lim- 
itation of  the  material  and  the  grouping  of  its 
manifold  incidents  about  a  single  central  point, 
but  also  the  skilful  complication  of  the  story.  The 
abundance  and  variety  of  the  stories  of  Odysseus' 
adventures  on  the  return  from  Troy,  and  in  con- 
flict with  the  foes  in  his  own  home,  are  constantly 
focused  upon  one  thing — the  character  of  the  hero. 
His  courage  and  his  cautious  judgment  are  not  to 
be  broken  down  by  the  dangers  of  the  long  voyage, 
nor  yet  by  the  terrors  of  conflicts  with  giants  and 
with  supernatural  powers.  Xeither  the  allure- 
ments of  comfort,  nor  the  charms  of  beautiful  god- 
desses, nor  the  loveliness  of  the  maiden  who  saves 
his  life,  can  overpower  his  longing  for  home  and 
faithful  affection  for  his  wife.  And  a  like  spirit 
in  that  wife,  joined  with  courage  and  cunning,  has 
meanwhile,  in  conflict  with  hardly  less  dangerous 
enemies,  kept  safe  the  home  into  which,  after  all 
his  toils  and  struggles,  he  is  to  enter  for  a  new 
lease  of  happiness.  The  copious  details  which  fill 


50  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE    HOMERIC   POEMS. 

up  this  outline  are  not  recited  in  simple  chrono- 
logical order ;  but  the  opening  of  the  poem  shows 
us  the  wanderings  of  Odysseus  nearly  at  their  end, 
while  the  previous  incidents,  instead  of  being  told 
by  the  poet,  are,  far  more  effectively,  put  into  the 
mouth  of  the  hero  himself  at  the  time  when  he, 
welcomed  and  entertained  by  the  Phaeakians,  is 
thereby  assured  of  a  return  to  his  home.  Two,  or 
rather  three,  threads  of  narrative — the  occurrences 
in  the  house  of  Odysseus,  the  journey  of  Telema- 
chos  to  visit  his  father's  companions-in-arms,  and 
the  wanderings  of  Odysseus — are  carried  on  at  first 
independently  side  by  side,  and  then  are  united 
when  the  father  and  son,  almost  at  the  same  mo- 
ment, return  to  Ithaka,  and  win  their  victory  over 
the  enemy  at  home.  That  this  skilful  arrange- 
ment is  the  result  of  matured  reflection,  and  marks 
by  its  complication  a  higher  stage  of  art  in  con- 
struction than  the  straightforward  course  of  'the 
Iliad,  must  be  admitted  without  hesitation ;  but 
this  by  no  means  decides — does  not,  in  fact,  even 
touch — the  question  whether  the  Odyssey,  in  its 
present  form,  was  originally  conceived  as  a  single 
poem,  or  is  either  a  careful  combination  of  ele- 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMEEIC   POEMS.  51 

ments  not  originally  designed  for  such  union,  or 
the  expansion  of  a  nucleus  originally  much  sim- 
pler. But  against  the  supposition  of  original  uni- 
ty of  conception  in  the  Odyssey  as  we  have  it,  in- 
superable objections  arise.  In  the  first  place,  in 
order  to  find  in  the  particulars  above  mentioned  a 
proof  of  the  original  unity  of  the  poem,  it  is  nec- 
essary to  apply  them  in  the  most  general  and  ab- 
stract way  to  the  actual  details  of  our  Odyssey.88 
The  alleged  connection  of  all  the  numerous  inci- 
dents with  the  one  person  Odysseus  cannot,  surely, 
be  held  strictly  true  of  those  in  the  third  and 
fourth  books ;  for  the  real  subject  of  those  books  is 
the  adventures  of  other  heroes  on  the  return  from 
Troy,  which  have  no  natural  connection  with  his.89 
The  character  of  Odysseus  certainly  might  be  so 
presented  throughout  the  whole  poem  as  it  has 
been  sketched  above  ;  but,  in  fact,  we  find  this  true 
only  in  the  first  half  of  the  poem,  while  in  the 
second  half  it  is  exasperated  on  both  sides  almost 

oo 

to  the  point  of  caricature.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
wise  self-control  of  the  hero  degenerates,  when  he 
appears  in  his  own  house  cunningly  disguised  as  a 
beggar,  almost  to  vulgar  buffoonery;90  and,  on  the 


52  THE   OKIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC   POEMS. 

other,  such  valor  as  enables  him  alone  to  engage 
with  more  than  a  hundred  able-bodied  men,  skilled 
in  war,  without  even  the  help  of  a  deity  to  make 
it  credible,  oversteps  the  limit  of  moderation  which 
is  observed  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  narrative.91 
An  artful  complication  of  different  threads  of  nar- 
rative is  certainly  characteristic  of  the  Odyssey; 
but  not  less  characteristic  is  it  that  just  this  pecu- 
liarity of  construction  involves  us  in  unexplained, 
indeed  for  the  most  part  inexplicable,  difficulties. 
The  incidents  of  the  return  of  Odysseus  are,  indeed, 
interwoven  with  those  of  the  vovas-e  of  Telema- 

*/      o 

chos ;  but,  on  closer  study,  admiration  of  this  plot 
is  more  than  shaken.  For  the  journey  of  Telema- 
chos  is  not  only  altogether  without  influence  on  the 
main  action,  but  is  undertaken  in  the  beginning 
without  motive  and  prolonged  without  reason.92 
One  cannot  avoid  the  thought  that  it  is  introduced 
only  in  order  to  attach  to  the  adventures  of  Odys- 
seus a  sketch  of  those  of  some  other  heroes.  And, 
more  than  all,  the  very  points  of  contact  of  the 
combined  narratives,  those  places  on  which  the  de- 
fence of  original  unity  must  lay  special  stress, 
bring  us  every  time  into  undeniable  inconsisten- 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    HOMERIC    POEMS.  53 

cies.  In  passing  from  the  Telemachos  story  to  the 
Odysseus  story,  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  book, 
\ve  find  a  council  of  the  gods  which  is  irreconcila- 
ble in  the  subject  of  its  dealing  with  that  of  the 
first  book ;  and  the  lines  in  which  it  is  described 
are  plainly  a  clumsy  patchwork,  made  up  from 
other  passages  of  the  poem.93  Again,  when  we  re- 
turn, in  the  fifteenth  book,  from  the  story  of  Odys- 
seus' arrival  in  Ithaka  to  that  of  Telemachos,  the 
goddess  Athene  comes  in  to  help  out  the  transi- 
tion. Athene  has  been  aiding  Odysseus  by  word 
and  deed  since  his  arrival  on  the  island,  and  she 
goes  to  Lakedaemon  to  stir  up  Telemachos  to 
return  home.  But  she  leaves  Odysseus  long  af- 
ter daybreak,  and  arrives  in  Lakedaemon  on  the 
same  day  before  dawn !  Both  marks  of  time  are 
clearly  given,  and  each  is  essential  to  the  whole 
course  of  the  narrative  in  which  it  stands,  so  that 
the  contradiction  is  plain  and  admitted.94  Such 
an  inconsistency  is  not  conceivable  in  an  original 
creation  ;  but  we  understand  it  when  we  recognize 
here  an  artificial  union  of  poems  which,  as  already 
familiar  and  cherished,  were  brought  into  their 
new  relation  with  the  least  possible  change. 


54:  THE   ORIGIN   OF    THE    HOMERIC   POEMS. 

The  supposition  of  original  unity  in  the  poem  is 
upset,  in  the  second  place,  by  the  consideration 
that  there  is  want  of  harmony  between  different 
parts  of  the  Odyssey  as  to  certain  fundamental 
matters  which  must  have  been  fully  present  to  the 
consciousness  of  the  poet.  For  example,  as  to  the 
deity  to  whose  wrath  the  extraordinary  woes  of 
Odysseus  are  to  be  ascribed;95  as  to  the  proximate 
number  of  the  suitors  of  Penelope96  and  the  time 
during  which  their  wild  doings  had  gone  on  ;97  as 
to  their  offer  ills'  or  not  offering  the  customary 

O  O  */ 

marriage  presents;98  as  to  the  personal  appearance 
of  the  hero  himself;99  as  to  the  age  of  Tele  in  a- 
chos;100  as  to  the  design  against  his  life  formed 
by  the  suitors  ;101  as  to  the  name  of  a  person  in  the 
household  of  Odysseus  who  was  of  no  little  conse- 
quence to  the  action  of  the  story102 — in  these  and 
other  points  we  find  unmistakable  contradictions 
which  cannot  be  smoothed  over  or  eliminated. 

Thirdly  and  finally,  we  observe  in  the  tone  and 
poetic  quality  of  the  narrative  a  variation  which 
cannot  escape  notice  even  in  the  disguise  of  a 
translation.  Let  one  read  in  immediate  sequence 
the  sixth  book,  for  example  (the  meeting  with 


THE   OKIGIN    OF   THE    HOMERIC   POEMS.  55 

Xansikaa),  and  the  twentieth  (the  incidents  pre- 
ceding the  fatal  catastrophe),  and  he  may  safely 
offer  a  reward  for  any  person  who  shall  be  able  to 
attribute  to  the  same  poet  the  transparent  clear- 
ness of  the  former  and  the  helpless  confusion  of 
the  latter.103  There  is,  moreover,  one  peculiarity  of 
the  Odyssey  which  makes  it  very  difficult  to  decide 
how  far  the  poem  is  made  up  of  originally  inde- 
pendent constituents,  and  how  far  it  has  merely 
been  expanded  by  additions  to  an  original  whole, 
and  that  peculiarity  is  the  repetition  of  essential- 
ly the  same  mythical  matter  in  various  forms,  or 
what  may  be  called  twin  narratives — a  peculiarity 
which  can  hardly  be  paralleled  from  the  Iliad,  but 
is  a  characteristic  feature  of  the  last  two  thirds  of 
the  Odyssey.  Thus  we  find  in  the  adventures  of 
Odysseus  the  two  solitary  divinities,  Kirke  and  Ka- 
lypso ;  the  two  mysterious  helpers  of  his  voyage, 
Aiolos  and  Alkinoos ;  the  two  similar  prophecies 
from  Kirke  and  Teiresias ;  the  fatal  sleep  of  Odys- 
seus twice  repeated.104  And  so  it  is  constantly  after 
the  arrival  of  Odysseus  in  Ithaka.  The  story  of  his 
coming  into  his  own  house  unrecognized,  in  the 
disguise  of  a  beggar,  and  having  a  bone  or  a  foot- 


56  THE   OKIGIN    OF    THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

stool  thrown  at  him  by  the  revellers  who  are  eating 
up  his  substance,  striking  enough  once,  is  repeated 
three  times  with  slight  variations ; 105  four  times  the 
sagacity  of  the  dogs  is  impressed  upon  us;106  four 
times  we  have  fictitious  accounts  of  himself  and 
his  history  given  by  Odysseus,  similar  to  one  an- 
other, and  yet  not  the  same  even  in  the  principal 
features,  although  some  of  the  same  persons  are 
present  to  hear  them.107  The  quiet  slumbers  of 
Penelope  in  the  upper  room  at  all  times  in  the 
day,108  the  inexhaustible  capacity  of  Odyssens  for 
eating  and  begging,109  the  accumulation  of  similar 
omens,110  as  if  all  Olympos  were  incessantly  busy 
about  the  house  of  Odysseus — in  a  word,  the  mul- 
titude of  difficulties,  no  single  one  of  which  can  be 
satisfactorily  cleared  up  unless  all  are,  is  so  great 
as  to  discourage  even  an  indefatigable  student.111 
To  have  undertaken  the  investigation  in  its  full 
scope,  and  to  have  carried  it  on  with  a  keenness 
of  judgment  and  a  rigorous  acceptance  of  truth 
which  enabled  him  to  reach  as  positive  results  for 
an  understanding  of  the  formation  of  the  Odyssey 
as  Lachmann  did  for  the  Iliad — this  is  the  undis- 
puted honor  of  A.  KirchhofiV12  It  would  perhaps 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE    HOMERIC   POEMS.  57 

be  premature  to  indicate  now,  in  regard  to  the 
Odyssey  as  in  regard  to  the  Iliad,  within  what 
limits  the  traditional  assumption  of  original  unity 
must  confine  its  opposition  to  these  views;  but 
still  one  may  be  allowed  to  point  out  some  things 
which  seem  to  be  settled  with  entire  certainty  by 
Kirchhoffs  investigations.  The  idea  of  original 

o  o 

unity  of  construction  in  the  Odyssey  as  we  have  it 
is  not  merely  disturbed,  but  so  completely  set  aside 
that  scarcely  the  shadow  of  it  can  maintain  itself. 
On  the  contrary,  the  poem  has  been  systematically 
worked  over  by  an  editor  with  intelligent  design 
and  some  degree  of  poetic  power,  who  incorpo- 
rated into  the  originally  more  simple  nucleus  bor- 
rowed matter  of  kindred  mythical  tenor  and  addi- 
tions of  his  composition.  And  even  that  original 
nucleus  which  we  must  assume,  the  earliest  nar- 
rative of  the  adventures  and  return  of  Odysseus, 
is  not  a  simple  song  like  those  which  we  assume 
as  making  up  the  Iliad,  but  belongs  to  the  period 
in  which  the  epic  poem  as  a  form  of  art  was  being 
developed.  But  the  expanded  edition  of  its  pres- 
ent form  belongs  to  the  time  when  the  decay  of 
the  Greek  epic  had  already  begun,  when  mean- 


58  THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC   POEMS. 

ingless  breadth  of  narration,  conveyed  in  the  tra- 
ditional forms  of  language  and  metre,  served  as  a 
substitute  for  the  freshness  and  vivid  reality  of 
true  poetry.  If,  indeed,  we  lose  anything  of  real 
value  when  we  are  obliged  to  give  up  the  fond 
belief  in  a  divine  singer  who  gave  forth  the  Iliad 
in  his  youth  and  the  Odyssey  in  his  old  age,  still 
we  have  gained  something  of  much  more  impor- 
tance in  its  stead ;  for  these  two  poems  have  be- 
come for  us,  without  suffering  thereby  harm  or 
loss  in  their  intrinsic  value,  reliable  witnesses  to 
the  progressive  growth  of  Greek  epic  poetry.  The 
comparison  to  the  rising  and  setting  sun  with 
which  antiquity  glorified  the  individual  Homer  as 
author  of  these  two  poems,  we  may  adopt  in  an 
altered  sense  and  apply  to  the  poems  themselves 
as  representatives  of  the  stages  of  that  poetic  de- 
velopment. 

I  have  now  endeavored  to  fulfil  the  task  which 
I  proposed  to  myself  in  the  beginning,  to  set  forth 
the  reasonableness  of  raising  the  question  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  Homeric  poems,  to  suggest  the  means 
for  its  solution,  and  to  indicate  the  limits  within 
which  the  points  in  dispute  are  by  this  time  re- 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  59 

stricted.  It  may  justly  be  demanded  that  I  should 
bring  together  the  positive  conclusions,  less  mani- 
fest in  themselves,  which  result  from  these  nega- 
tive considerations,  and  thereby  present  a  view  in 
outline  of  the  history  of  the  formation  of  these 
two  poems.  To  such  an  attempt  a  few  words  may 
be  devoted  in  closing.113 

As  in  the  case  of  all  peoples  where  it  is  possible 
to  trace  the  course  of  poetic  development  up  to  its 
beginnings,114  so  in  the  Greek  tribes,  epic  song  ap- 
pears as  the  earliest  form  of  poetry.  Its  subject- 
matter  is  the  legendary  lore  of  the  tribe  and  the 
people.  Legend  differs  from  history,  not  merely 
in  being  less  certain  and  trustworthy  because  it 
depends  solely  on  oral  tradition,  but  also  in  that  it 
gives  a  prominence  to  particular  events  and  per- 
sonages as  the  most  perfect  expression  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  people  and  shining  types  of  what  it 
wishes  to  be  and  to  do.115  Even  written  history  does 
not  exclude  the  growing-up  of  legend  concerning 
the  very  same  time — e.  <?.,  as  to  Charlemagne,  as  to 
the  Crusades  —  if  certain  characters  and  events 
take  hold  of  and  inspire  a  whole  people  in  its  in- 
most being.  Such  a  subject  of  uplifting  and  glo- 


60  THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE    HOMERIC   POEMS. 

rions  remembrance  the  Greek  tribes  had  in  the 
long  contest  which  they  carried  on  against  kindred 
tribes  on  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  the  Trojan  war. 
The  heroic  deeds  of  that  conflict,  the  adventures 
of  the  heroes  on  their  return,  every  one  would 
wish  to  have  recalled  to  memory  on  festival  oc- 
casions in  the  happy  enjoyment  of  quiet  days.116 
Therefore  the  palace  of  a  prince  in  the  heroic 
time  could  not  do  without  the  bard  to  recite  in 
verse,  accompanied  by  the  simple  chords  of  the 
lyre,  the  fame  of  those  heroes.  High  in  honor  at 
home  and  abroad  was  the  man  on  whom  the  gods 
had  bestowed  the  gift  of  song.117  Mneme,  Melete, 
Aoide — that  is,  Memory,  Meditation,  Song— are  the 
characteristic  names,  dating  from  the  earliest  time, 
of  the  muses  from  whom  this  gift  came.118  For  the 
singer's  merit  did  not  consist  in  his  creative  orig- 
inality, but  people  wanted  to  hear  from  him  that 
which  they  already  knew,  and  they  wanted  to  hear 
it  because  they  knew  it  and  delighted  in  it.  "The 
individual  poet,"  to  use  the  happy  language  of  an 
honored  scholar  of  our  own  time,119  "  influences  the 
natural  growth  of  legend  in  much  the  same  way 
as  a  skilful  gardener  regulates  and  guides  the  nat- 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  61 

nral  growth  of  his  plants."  The  bard  brings  the 
legendary  heroes  clearly  before  our  perception,  and 
that  in  rhythmical  form,  which  is  grateful  to  the 
hearers  and  at  the  same  time  aids  his  own  memo- 
ry. There  is  no  marked  difference  between  de- 
livering songs  which  he  himself  has  first  put  into 
shape  and  repeating  those  of  other  poets  which 
have  Avon  the  applause  of  their  hearers.  The  song 
contains  a  single  event  which  is  limited  within 

o 

moderate  compass  and  so  can  be  taken  in  at  one 
view.  Such  is  the  representation  which  the  Ho- 
meric poems  themselves  give  us  of  the  bard  in  the 
period  to  which  their  story  refers.  The  lay  of 
Ares  and  Aphrodite,  which  is  put  in  the  Odyssey 
into  the  mouth  of  the  Phaeakian  bard,  takes  up  no 
more  than  a  hundred  lines.  It  would  be  rash  to 
seek  to  determine  the  average  length  of  the  earli- 
est epic  lays  from  this  example,1'20  which,  by  the 
way,  is  beyond  question  an  interpolation,  but  that 
each  song  covered  but  one  single  incident — e.  g., 
the  building  of  the  wooden  horse  —  and  was  of 
limited  extent,  is  proved  by  the  other  instances  of 
heroic  songs  and  by  the  manner  of  their  use ;  for 
the  listening  to  the  bard  is  only  one  of  several 


62  THE   OEIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

social  pleasures  during  or  after  a  feast,  and  is  al- 
ternated with  other  amusements.  The  bard  had 
no  need  of  long  introductions  to  make  the  spe- 
cial narrative  intelligible  to  his  audience ;  they 
were  already  familiar  with  the  legend  at  every 
point. 

The  period  of  the  emigration  of  the  Aeolic  and 
Ionic  tribes  to  Asia  Minor  was  especially  fitted  to 
stimulate  recollection  of  the  heroic  deeds  of  the 
Trojan  war,  for  then  a  similar  conflict  had  to  be 
carried  on  in  the  same  or  neighboring  localities, 

o  o  * 

and  so  the  remembrance  of  the  past  acted  as  an 
encouragement  for  the  present.  It  is  therefore 
significant  that  the  earliest  date  m  assigned  for  the 

O  O 

lifetime  of  Homer  makes  him  contemporary  with 
the  Ionic  migration.  In  the  Ionian  colonies,  which 
soon  succeeded  in  establishing  themselves,  poetry 
was  cultivated  by  schools  of  bards,  and,  as  a  prob- 
able consequence  of  the  rise  of  these  schools  at  in- 
tervals during  the  next  four  centuries,  we  find  dif- 
ferent dates  given  for  the  birth  of  Homer  in  dif- 
ferent cities.  The  existence  of  these  schools  of 
poetry  explains  the  preservation  of  heroic  songs 
when  once  composed,  and  it  also  furnished  the 


THE   OKIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  63 

natural  transition  to  the  next  stage  in  the  develop- 
ment of  epic  poetry. 

The  prosperous  growth  of  individual  Greek  cit- 
ies of  Asia  Minor  and  their  active  intercourse  with 
one  another  gave  opportunity  for  regularly  recur- 
ring festivals,  at  which  great  assemblies  of  people 
gave  themselves  up  for  considerable  time  to  re- 
fined enjoyments  at  their  leisure.  One  important 
element  of  the  festivities  was  the  delivery  of  epic 
songs,  and  that  no  longer  by  a  single  poet  or  rhap- 
sode, but  by  several  in  succession  in  mutual  rival- 
ry.122 What,  then,  could  be  more  natural  than  that, 
when  longer  time  was  given  for  the  recital,  and 
the  demands  of  the  audiences  gradually  became 
more  exacting,  the  single  songs  should  be  arranged 
together  in  the  order  which  their  subjects  indi- 
cated ?  Such  combination  would  be  facilitated  by 
the  fact  that  the  legends  naturally  grew  up  around 
certain  fixed  central  points  of  myth,  and  the  al- 
ready settled  popularity  of  the  old  songs  would 
insure  their  being  taken  up  into  the  new  connec- 
tion with  as  little  change  as  possible.  That  the 
change  of  a  few  lines  and  the  addition  of  a  few 
would  be  enough  to  combine  these  originally  inde- 


64:  THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

pendent  elements,  the  separate  hero-songs,  into  a 
long  epic,  seems  proved  by  the  successful  attempt 
of  a  modern  German  poet  to  unite  into  such  a 
form  a  part  of  the  detached  folk-songs  of  the  Ser- 
vians,123 as  well  as  by  the  combination  into  a  single 
epic  of  the  Finnish  folk-songs,  which  still  exist 
separately,  side  by  side  with  the  epic,  and  number 
more  than  22,000  lines.  It  is  evident,  too,  that  in 
the  historical  development  of  epic  poetry  this 
process  has  actually  occurred  several  times,  for, 
even  if  the  method  of  formation  of  the  German 
national  epic,  the  Nibelungenlied,  is  still  an  open 
question,  there  is  an  undoubted  instance  in  the  old 
French  poem  of  the  battle  of  Eoncesvalles.124  Now, 
in  what  progressive  steps  this  combination,  by  re- 
writing some  lines  and  adding  others,  took  place 
in  the  case  of  the  Greek  heroic  songs  of  the  wrath 
of  Achilles  and  the  return  of  Odysseus,  can  hardly 
be  ascertained  with  complete  definiteness ;  but  the 
poems  themselves,  as  we  have  them,  show  us  not 
only  that  some  such  process  took  place,  but  also 
that  there  is  a  marked  difference  between  the  two 
poems  in  the  elements  which  may  be  recognized 
in  them,  in  the  method  of  their  development,  and 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMEKIC    POEMS.  65 

in  the  time  when  they  were  completed.  The  Il- 
iad, in  most  of  its  extent,  enables  us  to  recognize 
the  separate  lays,  sometimes  united  by  mere  juxta- 
position, sometimes  more  skilfully  dovetailed  into 
one  another,  and  then  it  brings  its  subject  to  a 
close  with  poetry  of  a  later  date  which  already 
shows  signs  of  decay  in  freshness  and  vigor.125  In 
the  Odyssey,  the  simplest  element,  recognizable  as 
such  by  the  style  itself,  belongs  to  an  age  in  which 
epic  poetry  was  entering  upon  more  comprehen- 
sive composition ;  the  continuation  of  it  and  the 
editor's  work  which  expands,  dilutes,  and  rounds 
off  the  story,  belong  to  the  time  of  the  decline  of 
epic  poetry.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that 
the  earlier  songs  disappeared  at  once  when  this 
combining  or  final  editing  work  was  done;  fur- 
thermore, it  is  quite  probable,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  that  frequently  single  passages  of  the  com- 
posite epic  were  separately  recited,  for  only  in  ex- 
traordinary festivals  would  there  be  time  for  the 
delivery  of  the  whole.126  When  Solon  fixed  by  law 
the  order  of  the  recitation  of  the  Homeric  poems 
for  the  great  Athenian  festival,127  he  took  the  first 
step  in  the  preservation  of  the  completed  form. 


66  THE   OEIGIN   OF    THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

The  arran Cements  of  Peisistratos  for  committing 

o  o 

them  to  writing  were  the  second  step,  and  to  that 
we  owe  their  preservation  to  our  time. 

This  which  I  have  given  is  but  an  outline  of 
the  history  of  the  origin  of  the  Homeric  poems,  a 
mere  sketch  which  needs  to  be  filled  out  at  numer- 
ous points.  Some  points  must  always  remain  not 
filled  out;  others  the  progress  of  investigation  will 
supply,  and  so  gradually  circumscribe  the  region 
of  the  unknown,  provided  the  same  principles  be 
observed  which  prevail  in  the  philological  science 
of  to-day.  These  principles  are,  first,  a  conscien- 
tious upholding  of  the  real  tradition  of  antiquity 
— for  the  Homeric  investigations  since  Wolf's  day 
have  not  abandoned  the  traditions  of  antiquity, 
but  rather  have  at  last  re-established  a  consistent 
connection  with  them  ;  second,  an  indefatigable  in- 
vestigation of  the  most  isolated  and  minute  par- 
ticulars, for  it  is  just  as  true  of  philology  as  it 
is  of  physical  science,that  no  matter  of  investiga- 
tion can  be  called  trifling,  but  everything  may  be 
important  in  its  relations ;  third,  an  extension  of 
one's  view  over  the  entire  literature  of  the  nation 
immediately  concerned,  and  over  kindred  phenom- 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS.  G7 

ena  in  other  nations.188  These  are  the  means  by 
which  the  philology  of  to-day  endeavors  to  present 
to  our  mental  view  classical  antiquity  in  its  true 
form,  and  in  the  Homeric  investigations  we  may 
clearly  recognize  the  application  of  these  means. 
Whatever  near  approach  to  historic  truth  lias  been 
attained  in  the  field  of  the  Homeric  question  has 
been  due,  not  to  the  accident  of  happy  suggestions, 
but  to  rigorous  method,  to  unwearied  investiga- 
tion, to  absolute  devotion  to  the  subject. 


~?  If, 

V  /    -I- 


s^Ask-o-i 


NOTES. 


1  Herod.  II.  53.    Further  instances  in  Bernhardy,  Grie- 
chische  Literatur-GescMchte,  2d  ed.  I.  p.  251 ;  Sengebusch, 
Homerica  dissertatio  I.  p.  91. 

2  Numerous  comparisons  of  this  kind  in  Lauer,  Gesch. 
der  Horn.  Poesie,  p.  59. 

3  Athen.  VIII.  39. 

4  Sengebusch,  Horn.  diss.  I.  p.  171. 

5  Sengebusch,  I.  pp.  139-166.     For  the  principles  on 
which  Thucydides  used  the  Homeric  poems  for  inferences 
as  to  the  historical  facts  of  the  earliest  times,  see  Roscher, 
Leben,  Werk  u.  Zeitalter  des  Thukydides,  p.  132  sqq. 

6  So  Xenophanes  in  Sext.  Emp.  adv.  Math.  IX.  193;  I. 
289;  Plat.  Rep.  II.  377  D  sqq. 

7  E.  g.,  Plat.  Theaet.  180  D  ;  Arist.  de  an.  HI.  427  a,  25, 
with  Trendelenburg's  note,  p.  449. 

8  Val.  Max.  3, 7.     Cf.  Lessing's  Laokoon,  XXH. 

9  Lycurg.  adv.  Leocr.  §  102;  Diog.  Laert.  I.  57.     On  the 
latter  passage,  Sengebusch,  Horn.  diss.  II.  p.  107  sq.;  Lehrs, 
Rhein.  Mus.  N;  F.  XVII.  p.  491  sqq. 

10  Plat.  Protag.  325  E ;    Isoc.  Paneg.  §  159 ;    Hermann, 
Griech.  Antiq.  III.  §  35,  6  sq. 

11  Xen.  Conv.  3,  5. 

12  As  to  Plato,  for  example,  see  the  proof  in  Sengebusch, 
I.  p.  121  sqq.     The  long  list  of  Homeric  lines  quoted  or  re- 


70  THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC    POEMS. 

ferred  to  in  the  writings  of  Aristotle  and  those  attributed 
to  him  is  given  in  the  Index  Aristotelians  under  "O/ij/poe. 
Those  of  the  Odyssey  are  not  half  so  numerous  as  those 
of  the  Iliad.  It  would  be  interesting  to  determine  in  the 
whole  range  of  Greek  literature  the  number  of  references 
to  the  Iliad  and  to  the  Odyssey  respectively. 

13  On  this  whole  subject  of  the  influence  of  Homer  on 
the  Greeks,  see  Lehrs,  De  Arist.  stud.  Horn.  pp.  200-229 ; 
Lauer,  Gesch.  der  Horn.  Poesie,  pp.  5-58  ;  the  greater  part 
of  Sengebusch,  Horn.  diss.  I. ;  Bergk,  Griech.  Lit.  I.  pp.  874- 
882. 

14  Information  as  to  the  principal  translations  into  Latin, 
French,  Italian,  English,  and  German,  is  given  in  Bernhar- 
dy,  Griech.  Lit.  2d  ed.  II.  1,  p.  175  sq. 

15  Scarcely  any  book  has  done  so  much  to  further  a  real 
insight  into  the  character  and  special  excellence  of  the 
Homeric  poetry  as  Lessing's  Laokoon.     A  large  part  of 
the  numerous  subsequent  treatises  on  the  subject  is  based 
on  his  clear  and  simple  remarks.     One  among  these,  W. 
Wackernagel's  "Die  Epische  Poesie"  (Schweiz.  Museum  fur 
histor.  Wissenschaften,  vol.  i.  and  ii.),  deserves  special  men- 
tion for  breadth  of  view,  thoughtful- penetration,  and  mas- 
terly clearness. 

16  Italienische  Reise,  II.    [I  am  so  doubtful  of  the  transla- 
tion here  that  I  subjoin  the  original. — TR.]  :  "  Homer  stellt 
die  Existenz  dar,  wir  gewohnlich  den  Effect:  er  schildert 
das  Fiirchterliche,  wir  furchterlich,  er  das  Angenehme,  wir 
angenehm." 

17  Brieftvechsel  mit  Schiller,  No.  424. 

18  Instances  in  Lauer,  Gesch.  der  Horn.  Poesie,  p.  59  sq. 

19  Prolegomena  ad  Homerum,  sive  de  operum  Homeri- 
corum  prisca  et  genuina  forma  variisquc  mutationibus  et 


NOTES  13-20.  71 

probabili  ratione  emendandi — Scripsit  Fried.  Aug.  Wolfius, 
vol.  i.  (no  second  volume  was  published),  1795.  New  edi- 
tion, 1859.  For  earlier  suggestions  of  the  idea  which 
"NVolf  was  the  first  to  establish  by  proof,  see  Bernhardy, 
Griech.  Lit.  II.  p.  98  sq. ;  Volkmann,  Gesch.  und  Kritik  der 
Wolf  schen  Prolegomena  zu  Homer,  pp.  1-35. 

20  For  the  influence  of  Wolfs  Prolegomena  beyond  the 
circle  of  scholars,  see  Friedlander,  Die  Homerische  Kritik 
von  Wolf  bis  Grote  (1853),  pp.  1-6;  Bernhardy,  Griech.  Lit. 
II.  1,  pp.  99-103,  and  especially  the  section  on  this  topic  in 
Volkmann's  book  just  cited,  pp.  71-181. 

21  Briefwechsel  init  Goethe,  No.  459. 

22  Hermann  und  Dorothea.     [The  short  poem  in  elegiac 
metre,  not  the  well-known  long  one  in  hexameters. — TR.] 

"Here's  to  the  health  of  the  man  who  has  opened  us  all  a  iiew  field 

Where  we  may  roam,  by  breaking  down  Homer's  great  name  1 
For  who  to  the  gods,  or  who  to  'the  poet,'  refnses  to  yield? 
But  to  be  ranked  as  a  Homerid,  even  as  youngest,  is  fame." 

23  Goethe,  Works,  oct.  ed.  of  1827,  vol.  iii.  p.  156.    A  sim- 
ilar utterance  of  his  from  a  much  earlier  time,  scarcely 
eighteen  months  after  the  expression  of  the  liveliest  as- 
sent to  Wolfs  views,  in  a  letter  to  Schiller  of  May  16th, 
1798,  is  given  below  in  note  57.     Compare  Volkmann  as 
above,  p.  75. 

24  Korte,  Leben  Wolfs,  pp.  64  sq.,  73  sq.,  265 ;  Volkmann, 
pp.  35-48. 

25  Preface  to  edition  of  the  Iliad,  Leipzig,  1804,  pp.  xxi.- 
xxiv. 

26  Lachmann,  Betrachtungen  uber  die  Ilias,  mit  Zusatzen 
von  Moritz  Haupt  (Berlin,  1847).    Earlier  than  the  first  part 
(1837)  of  Lachmann's  Betrachtungen  appeared  the  valua- 
ble treatise  of  G.  Hermann,  "  De  interpolationibus  Homeri " 


72  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC    POEMS. 

(1832) ;  Opuscula,  vol.  v.  pp.  52-77.  How  decidedly  Lach- 
maun's  work  made  an  epoch  in  the  discussion  is  clear  from 
the  fact  that  the  whole  of  the  extensive  literature  upon  the 
unity  of  the  Iliad  (the  most  important  works  of  which  are 
mentioned  below  in  notes  58-82)  consists  of  assent  to,  op- 
position to,  or  modification  of,  his  researches. 

27  As  a  comprehensive  statement  of  the  arguments  on 
this  side,  G.  W.  Nitzsch's  work,  Die  Sagenpoesie  der 
Griechen  kritisch  dargestellt  (1852),  deserves  prominent 
mention  (see  also  Schomann's  searching  criticism  of  it  in 
Jahn's  Jahrbiicher,  vol.  Ixix.,  and  in  his  treatise  "  De  reticen- 
tia  Horneri"  (1853),  Opusc.  vol.  iii.).  That  Nitzsch,  how- 
ever, in  spite  of  his  absolutely  rejecting  and  indefatiga- 
bly  assailing  Lachmann's  investigations,  in  some  essential 
points  comes  very  nearly  to  the  same  results,  is  shown  be- 
low in  note  82.  Both  tendencies,  the  opposition  to  Lach- 
mann  and  the  substantial  agreement  with  his  results,  ap- 
pear in  his  posthumous  work,  Beitriige  zur  Geschichte  der 
Epischen  Poesie  der  Griechen  (1862):  it  was  criticised  by 
J.  La  Roche  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  das  osterreichischc  Gym- 
nasialwesen,  1863.  On  the  same  side  with  Nitzsch  are  sev- 
eral thorough  essays  by  W.  Bauuilein  :  Kritik  der  Lach- 
mann'schen  Schrift  in  the  Zeitschrift  f.  d.  A.  W.,  1848  and 
1850;  Commentatio  de  compositione  II.  et  Odysseae  (Maul- 
bronn,  1847) ;  Preface  to  the  Tauchnitz  edition  of  the  Iliad ; 
in  Philologus,  vols.  vii.  and  xi.;  and  in  Jahn's  Jahrb.,  vol. 
Ixxv.  Two  essays  in  Diintzer's  Homerische  Abhandlun- 
gen  (1872),  pp.  28  and  101,  oppose  Lachmann's  views  in  al- 
most every  particular.  Diintzer's  own  view  as  to  the  unity 
of  the  two  poems  is  mentioned  below  in  note  82.  Fried- 
lander's  essay  in  defence  of  Grote's  theory  of  the  Iliad, 
Die  Homerische  Kritik  von  Wolf  bis  Grote  (1853),  may 


NOTE  27.  73 

also  be  regarded  as  a  polemic  against  the  main  points  of 
Lachmann's  theory.  It  was  attacked  by  W.  Ribbeck,  in 
Philologus,  vol.  viii. ;  "  Priifung  neuerer  Ansichten  iiber  die 
Ilias."  Opposed  to  both  these  parties  at  once  —  to  the 
party  of  Lachmann  as  well  as  to  that  of  Nitzsch — is  the 
"  new  hypothesis "  advanced  by  J.  Minckwitz  in  his  Vor- 
schule  zum  Homer  (1863).  As  to  its  relation  to  the  two 
parties,  see  note  82.  A  recent  addition  to  the  list  of  books 
in  defence  of  the  theory  of  original  unity  is  F.  Nutzhorn's 
Die  Entstehungsweise  der  Homerischen  Gedichte — Unter- 
suchungen  iiber  die  Berechtigung  der  auflosenden  Homer- 
Kritik,  with  a  preface  by  J.  N.  Madvig.  In  his  preface 
Madvig  denies  to  the  agency  of  Peisistratos  that  impor- 
tance in  the  work  of  compiling  the  Homeric  poems  which 
Wolf  and  Lachmanu  have  ascribed  to  it ;  and  supposes — 
very  nearly  as  Nitzsch  does  (see  note  82) — that  unity  of 
conception  and  the  appropriation  of  earlier  songs  were 
combined  in  the  production  of  the  poems :  "  But  he  who 
conceived  the  grand  poetic  thought  could  easily,  in  a  time 
when  the  ideas  of  literary  reputation  and  property  did  not 
yet  exist,  take  up  into  his  poem  with  little  alteration  pas- 
sages which  others  had  composed  in  the  same  metre,  or 
his  shaping  of  one  passage  or  another  might  be  so  far  de- 
termined by  the  influence  of  earlier  lays  that  certain  char- 
acteristic traits  and  even  turns  of  expression  might  be  re- 
produced in  his  poem.  The  Homeric  poems  are  not  a 
patchwork  of  songs,  but  were  composed  as  independent 
wholes  under  the  stimulus  and  control  of  earlier  songs" 
(p.  xi.).  Xutzhorn,  in  the  first  part  of  his  book  ("  The  His- 
torical Evidence,"  pp.  1-98),  strives  to  set  aside  as  untrust- 
worthy the  statements  which  are  used  to  disprove  the 
original  unity  of  the  poems.  In  the  second  part  ("  The 


74:  THE   ORIGIN    OF    THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

Internal  Evidence,"  pp.  100-268)  lie  discusses  some  of  the 
contradictions  which  have  been  pointed  out  in  the  Iliad, 
and  explains  them  away  or  ascribes  little  importance  to 
them,  in  the  hope  of  thus  establishing  the  original  unity 
of  conception  of  the  poems  against  attack  from  any  quar- 
ter. We  may  recognize  the  fervor  of  enthusiasm  for  the 
poet,  for  which  Madvig  praises  the  author  (p.  xi.),  but  the 
work  itself  can  hardly  be  thought  to  contribute  much  to 
the  Homeric  discussion,  since  it  touches  no  point  connect- 
ed with  the  real  question  which  had  not  been  more  calmly 
and  more  thoroughly  treated  in  previous  works. 

Bergk,  in  the  first  volume  of  his  Griechische  Litera- 
tur-Geschichte  (Berlin,  1872) — which  is  mainly  occupied 
with  the  subject  of  Homer — takes  a  position  in  defence  of 
the  original  unity  of  the  Iliad  against  Lachmann,  but  in  a 
very  different  sense  from  the  writers  hitherto  named.  In  or- 
der to  avoid  possible  inaccuracies,  I  will  confine  myself,  in 
attempting  to  state  Bergk'a  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Iliad, 
so  far  as  possible  to  his  own  words,  even  where  the  usual 
quotation  marks  do  not  appear.  The  Iliad,  as  well  as  the 
Odyssey,  was  originally  "  a  single  poem,  composed  on  a 
definite  plan,"  and  written  down  by  the  poet  himself,  to 
whom  we  may  reasonably  assign  the  name  Homer.  In  the 
present  form  of  the  Iliad  "  we  detect  three  essentially  dif- 
ferent elements :  the  original  poem,  additions  in  the  form 
of  continuations,  and  the  work  of  a  final  reviser.  The 
primitive  Iliad  was  a  poem  of  moderate  length,  though  it 
is  impossible  now,  since  parts  of  it  are  lost,  to  tell  exactly 
how  long  it  was ;  of  the  present  poem  the  greater  part 
consists  of  later  additions.  It'  was  also  simple  in  struct- 
ure." "  The  genuine  portions  of  the  Iliad  have  an  incom- 
parable beauty  and  dignity.  If  it  were  possible  to  detacli 


NOTE  27.  75 

them  wholly  from  the  later  additions  and  modifications, 
our  enjoyment  and  admiration  of  them  would  be  greatly 
intensified."  Still  we  must  not  "  set  up  too  high  a  stand- 
ard for  the  work  of  a  poet  who  made  the  first  attempt  to 
construct  an  epic  poem ;  such  a  work  could  be  brought  to 
perfection  only  by  slow  degrees."  "  This  gradual  build- 
ing-up of  the  poem  is  the  sufficient  explanation  of  many 
contradictions  and  many  variations  in  the  poetic  style." 
'•  Still  the  difference  of  the  various  parts  [of  what  we  actu- 
ally have],  the  amount  of  the  disturbing  element,  is  too 
great  to  allow  the  opinion  that  the  Iliad  in  its  present 
form  proceeded  from  a  single  hand."  This  "  suggests  the 
agency  of  several  persons  in  the  expansion  of  the  orig- 
inal poem.  The  work  of  the  great  master  was  at  once 
carried  on  by  younger  poets,  whom  we  must  suppose  to 
have  lived  in  close  connection  with  him,  and  whom  we 
may  call  Homeridae.  But  others,  too,  who  were  not  born 
into  this  family  circle,  took  part  in  the  work,  as  one  addi- 
tion gave  rise  to  another."  The  "  self-restraint  and  mod- 
eration which  distinguished  those  poets  were  unfortunate- 
ly lacking  in  the  editor  who  undertook  to  combine  these 
later  songs  with  the  primitive  Iliad,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
to  continue  the  work  of  the  younger  poets.  Thus  he  not 
only  worked  over  the  original  nucleus  and  its  outgrowths, 
but  added  longer  or  shorter  passages  of  his  own  produc- 
tion. These  additions  of  the  reviser  exceed  in  length  and 
audacity  all  that  his  predecessors  had  done  in  this  direc- 
tion. But  the  chief  injury  done  by  him  to  the  poems 
consists  in  his  having  wholly  suppressed  important  parts 
of  them,  substituting  his  own  work  in  their  place,  or  so 
modified  them  that  it  is  hardly  possible  to  recognize  the 
original  any  more,  and  that  not  only  where  his  additions 


76  THE    ORIGIN    OF  THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

involved  such  changes,  but  also  arbitrarily  and  needlessly. 
It  has  been  the  principal  task  of  the  present  critical  anal- 
ysis of  the  Iliad  to  indicate  the  work  of  this  audacious  re- 
viser, for,  although  he  impressed  a  distinct  character  on  all 
that  passed  through  his  hands,  the  real  facts  of  the  matter 
have  never,  up  to  this  time,  been  suspected  by  scholars." 
"  This  reviser  gave  to  the  Iliad  essentially  the  form  it  now 
has.  After  him  but  few  considerable  additions — such  as 
the  Catalogue  of  the  Ships  and  the  last  two  books — were 
made.  Even  these  additions  were  made  before  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Olympiads,  so  that  Arktinos  and  the  oth- 
er cyclic  poets  had  the  poem  before  them  in  completed 
form."  [Here  follows  Bergk's  analysis  of  the  Iliad,  which 
is  omitted  on  account  of  its  length. — TR.]  When  I  try  to 
estimate — so  far  as  Bergk's  language  makes  it  possible — 
the  amount  of  the  several  elements  of  our  present  Iliad  on 
the  basis  of  his  analysis,  I  find  that  of  the  (about)  16,000 
lines  of  the  poem  he  recognizes  some  1400  as  genuine, 
that  is,  as  belonging  to  the  original  Iliad,  and  some  5800 
as  half  genuine,  that  is,  as  original  lines,  but  so  modified 
by  the  reviser  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  distinguish 
clearly  the  original  element  from  the  modification.  The 
probability  of  such  a  thorough  change  of  form,  consist- 
ing not  merely  in  additions  and  expansions,  but  also  in 
omissions,  substitutions,  etc.,  seems  greatly  embarrassed 
by  Bergk's  supposition  that  the  Iliad  was  originally  com- 
mitted to  writing  by  its  author.  Bergk  anticipates  this 
objection,  and  says :  "  It  is  precisely  oral  tradition  that 
best  preserves  the  details.  A  poem  that  passes  from 
mouth  to  mouth  is  handed  down  more  nearly  as  it  is 
received,  or,  if  changed  at  all,  is  completely  changed ; 
whereas  putting  it  in  writing  brings  with  it  its  own  evils. 


NOTE  27.  77 

Every  rhapsode  who  wrote  down  the  poem  for  himself 
could  easily  change  the  text  at  his  pleasure,  and  the 
longer  poems  gave  opportunity  for  partial  changes,  arbi- 
trary additions,  and  new  combinations  of  parts.  The  ear- 
lier epic  poetry  was  in  the  highest  degree  fluid  in  sub- 
stance, and  the  use  of  writing  put  no  check  upon  its  va- 
riation; indeed,  we  may  say  that  writing  facilitated  the 
production  of  a  corrupt  and  defective  text."  For  answer 
to  this,  if  any  answer  is  needed,  one  may  see  the  remarks 
of  W.  Hartel  in  his  review  of  Bergk's  Literatur-Geschichte 
in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  d.  6'sterr.  Gym.,  1873,  p.  357.  To  esti- 
mate the  reality  of  these  changes,  and  judge  as  to  the  as- 
signment of  particular  passages  to  these  different  hands, 
would  require  more  room  than  Bergk's  analysis  itself  oc- 
cupies, and  is  made  more  difficult  by  special  peculiarities. 
In  spite  of  no  lack  of  confidence  on  his  part,  wre  find  so 
frequently  expressions  implying  uncertainty — "  probably," 
"  may  be,"  "  would  seem,"  etc. — that  it  is  hardly  less  dif- 
ficult to  draw  a  clear  line  between  what  he  considers 
proved  and  what  he  indicates  as  mere  opinion,  than  be- 
tween the  genuine  and  the  ungenuine  in  the  Iliad.  And 
for  what  he  puts  forward  as  certain  there  is  either  no  rea- 
son given,  or  the  reason  is  either  a  presupposition  as  to 
the  contents  of  the  original  mythical  matter  (e.  g.  that  ev- 
ery mention  of  Idomeneus  is  due  to  the  reviser),  which 
implies  knowledge  which  is  not  and  perhaps  never  can  be 
attained,  or  an  aesthetic  judgment  (as  in  his  high  opinion 
of  the  river-battle  in  XXI.)  which  will  hardly  command 
general  assent.  Bergk  says  indignantly  of  Lachnaann : 
"  It  goes  beyond  all  reasonable  credibility  when  the  mod- 
ern criticism  expects  us  to  recognize  a  mere  compilation 
of  loosely  connected  songs  in  those  two  poems,  which  not 


78  T11E    ORIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

only  the  simple,  natural,  popular  feeling,  but  the  unani- 
mous verdict  of  acknowledged  masters  in  poetry  and 
philosophy  has  for  centuries  regarded  as  an  indivisible 
whole."  That  this  "  unanimous  verdict,"  imposing  as  it 
sounds,  is  no  reality,  I  have  endeavored  above  (p.  18  sqq.) 
to  show  ;  but  when  Bergk  invokes  it  against  Lachmann,  it 
is  hard  to  see  how  he  can  deny  that  it  bears  with  just  the 
same  force  against  himself.  Aeschylos  and  Sophoklcs, 
Plato  and  Aristotle,  we  know  had  the  Iliad  in  the  same 
form — apart  from  inconsiderable  variations  of  the  text — 
in  which  we  read  it ;  and  what  they  admired  was  the 
Iliad  as  a  whole  and  as  the  work  of  one  poet;  of  the  rav- 
ages of  the  audacious  reviser  they  had  as  little  suspicion 
as  had  modern  criticism  before  Bergk.  What  really  sur- 
passes "all  reasonable  credibility"  is  that  Bergk  expects 
us  to  recognize,  of  the  poem  which  he  himself  describes 
as  above,  only  one  tenth  as  the  untouched  work  of  that 
creator  of  the  epic,  a  much  larger  part  as  the  off-hand 
production  of  the  light-minded  reviser,  and  more  than 
half  of  the  whole  as  a  confused  mixture  of  successive  de- 
posits of  poetry. 

28  Even  for  professional  scholars  there  have  appeared  in 
recent  times  several  statements  of  the  present  condition 
of  the  Homeric  question,  e.  g.  by  K.  A.  J.  Hoffmann,  "Der 
gegenwartige  Stand  der  Untersuchungen  liber  die  Einheit 
der  Ilias"  (Allg.  Monatsschrift  fur  "Wissensch.  und  Literatur, 
1852)  ;  G.  Curtius,  "  Andeutungen  liber  den  gegenw.  Stand 
der  Homerischen  Frage"  (Zeitschr.  fur  d.  6'sterr.  Gym., 
1854)  ;  Hiecke,  Der  gegenw.  Stand  der  Horn.  Frage 
(Stralsund,  1856).  An  article  by  J.  La  Roche  ("  Ueber 
die  Entstehung  der  Horn.  Gedichte "  in  the  last -men- 
tioned journal  for  1863)  is  an  attempt  to  determine  with 


NOTES  28-33.  79 

the  aid  of  the  labors  of  previous  scholars  the  definite 
marks  of  interpolations  and  points  of  juncture  through 
the  whole  of  the  two  poems.  It  contains  also  a  brief 
statement  of  the  author's  opinions  as  to  the  general  proc- 
ess of  growth  of  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey,  and  an  attempt 
to  indicate  the  several  original  lays  which  can  still  be 
recognized  in  it. 

29  In  this  section  I  have  endeavored  to  present  briefly 
some  of  the  principal  results  of  the  pregnant  discussions 
by  M.  Sengebusch  (Homerica  dissertatio  prior  et  posterior) 
referred  to  above  in  the  early  notes. 

30  The   Hesiodic  epic  and  the  cyclic  poems  not  con- 
nected with  the  Trojan  myths  have  been  purposely  left 
unmentioned  to  simplify  the  discussion,  inasmuch  as  they 
do  not  throw  light  directly  upon  the  point  of  view  under 
which  the  question  is  here  discussed. 

31  A  sketch  of  the  several  epics  belonging  to  the  Trojan 
myth,  made  up  by  combination  of  scattered  notices  and 
scanty  fragments,  is  given  by  Welcker  in  Der  Epische  Cy- 
clus  oder  die  Homerischen  Dichter.     This  book,  like  all 
his   similar   works,  has   great  value  from   his  profound 
knowledge  of  all  the  remains  of  ancient  Greek  literature 
and  art ;  but  it  oversteps  the  limits  that  are  set  to  our 
knowledge  by  the  fragmentary  condition  of  its  sources. 
The  section  on  the  post-Homeric  epic  poets  in  Nitzsch's 
Beitrage  zur  Geschichte   der  Epischcn  Poesie  goes  still 
further  in  this  direction. 

32  "Welcker,  as   above,  pp.  1-82.      A  modification   of 
Welcker's  view  is  implied  in  KirchhofTs  investigations 
on  the  composition  of  the  Odyssey,  sec  p.  56  sqq.  of  the 
lecture  and  the  accompanying  notes. 

33  Sengebusch,  Diss.  II.  pp.  23-25. 


80  THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

34  Sengebusch,  Diss.  II.  p.    14,   gives   a   view    of   the 
amount  of  the  epic  poetry  which  is  assigned  to  Homer 
by  Pindar,  Simonides,  Aeschylos,  Sophokles,  Aristophanes, 
and  Thucydides ;  the  proof  of  his  statements  is  given  in 
the  corresponding  passage  of  Diss.  I. 

35  Sengebusch,  Diss.  II.  p.  15. 

36  Brought  together  in  Sengebusch,  Diss.  II.  p.  13. 

37  Anthol.  Pal.  II.  pp.  715,  295  sq.  (in  Jacob's  Delectus 
Epigramui.  Graecorum,  IV.  6). 

38  As  to  the  time  of  composition  of  the  lives  of  Homer 
that  have  come  down  to  us,  see  Sengebusch,  Diss.  I.  pp.  1-13, 
and  the  authorities  quoted  in  them,  p.  19  sq.    The  whole  of 
diss.  I.  treats  of  their  value. 

39  Sengebusch,  Diss.  II.  pp.  47-69. 

40  Sengebusch,  Diss.  II.  p.  70. 

41  A  view  of  the  several  dates,  with  the  authorities  for 
them,  is  given  by  Sengebusch  in  Jahn's  Jahrbiicher,  67, 
p.  611   sqq.,  and  Diss.  II.  p.  78.     Roth  (Geschichte  der 
abendl.  Philosophic,  II.  p.  38),  with  noteworthy  naivete" 
quotes  the  date  given  by  Herodotus  as  if  it  were  the  only 
one  ever  suggested.     By  such  a  method  it  is  certainly 
easy  to  triumph  over  the  whole  Homeric  discussion  set 
on  foot  by  Wolf  as  "a  long  since  exploded  paradox," 
which  "proceeded  from  half -knowledge  of  history."     I 
mention  this  because  such  lofty  language  actually  imposes 
upon  readers  who  are  not  in  a  position  to  investigate  the 
matter  themselves ;    and  also   because  recently  (Literar. 
Centralblatt,  1860,  No.  7)  philology  was  reproached  with 
having  kept  a  significant  silence  about  Roth's  book.    The 
groundlessness  of  this  reproach  can  be  seen  by  a  glance  at 
the  second  edition  of  Zeller's  Philosophic  der  Griechen. 
But  such  a  method  as  that  just  mentioned  in  regard  to 


NOTES  34-43.  81 

the  period  of  Homer  needs  no  criticism  but  to  be  left  to 
bring  on  its  own  judgment. 

42  Those  statements  are  excluded,  in  both  cases,  which 
depend  not  on  actual  tradition,  but  merely  on  the  conject- 
ures and  computations  of  learned  men. — Sengebusch,  Jahn's 
Jahrb.  67,  p.  609  sqq. ;  Diss.  II.  p.  69. 

43  Sengebusch,  first  in  his  review  of  Lauer's  Gesch.  der 
Horn.  Poesie,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  67 ;  then   in  Diss.  II.     The 
chronological  principles  followed  in  these  discussions  are 
attacked  by  J.  Brandis,  De  temporum  antiquiss.  Graeco- 
rum  rationibus,  Index  lect.  (Bonna,  1857-58).    Compare  the 
review  of  this  essay  by  A.  von  Gutschmid,  Jahn's  Jahrb. 
83.      An  unqualified  condemnation  of  Sengebusch's   in- 
vestigations   is    expressed    by    Bergk    (Griech.   Literatur- 
Gesch.  I.  p.  463)  :   "  This  hypothesis  has  been  praised  as 
not  only  ingenious  but  well-supported;  yet  any  one  who 
takes  the  pains  to  examine  it  thoroughly  will  find  it  hol- 
low and  worm-eaten  all  through."     This  thorough  exam- 
ination Bergk  does  not  offer  us  directly  nor  enable  us  to 
gain  indirectly  from  his   own  treatment  of  the  subject. 
For,  among  the  statements  as  to  the  place  of  Homer,  he 
accepts  one   and   condemns  all  the  rest  without  reason 
given;  and,  as  to  the  time  of  Homer,  he  rejects  all  tradi- 
tions  as   pure  fiction,  and  puts  his  confidence  solely  in 
general   combinations.      Such  a  proceeding  is,  in  truth, 
very  simple  and  convenient,  but  it  wholly  neglects  to  ex- 
plain the  real  and  unique  multiplicity  of  statements,  and 
gives  one  no  right  to  condemn  at  a  blow  every  attempt  to 
explain  it.     See  Hartel,  Zeitschr.  fur  d.  osterr.  Gym..  1873 ; 
and,  as  to  the  pseudo-Herodotean  life  of  Homer,  which 
Bergk  adopts,  J.  Schmidt,  De  Herodotea  quae  fertur  vita 
Homeri  (Halle,  1875). 

6 


82  THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

44  Herod.  II.  53 ;    Sengebusch,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  67,  p.  373 
sqq. 

45  Sengebusch,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  67,  p.  614.     Against  this, 
Volkniann,  Gesch.  und   Kritik   der  Wolf  schen  Prolego- 
mena, p.  358   (cf.  p.  275   sqq.)  :    "  We  have  no  tradition 
of  the  work  or  of  the  existence  of  Homeridae  or  of  any 
school  of  epic  poetry  outside  of  Chios.     The  assumption 
of  their  existence  is  a  purely  arbitrary  assumption." 

46  Wolf,  Prolegomena,  pp.  40-94  ;  Sengebusch,  Diss.  II. 
p.  41  sqq.     I  have  left  the  statement  in  the  lecture  un- 
changed, although  Bergk  (Griech.  Lit.  I.  pp.  185-214),  and 
after  him  Volkmanu  (Gesch.  etc.,  pp.  181-232),  have  en- 
deavored to  prove  that  even  before  the  Trojan  War  the 
art  of  writing  was  in  use  among  the  Greeks.     The  earliest 
instance  of  writing  yet  discovered,  of  determinable  date,  is 
the  cutting  of  their  names  by  Greek  mercenaries  on  the 
Nubian  colossus  (Kirchhoff,  Gricch.  Alphabet,  2d  ed.  p.  31 
sqq.).    If  we  assume  as  probable  the  earlier  of  the  possi- 
ble dates  for  this  inscription,  it  proves  that  the  art  of 
writing   was   widely   diffused  among  the    Greeks   about 
620  B.C. ;  and,  of  course,  this  wide  diffusion  implies  the 
existence  and  practice  of  it  for  a  considerable  time  before 
that  date.     These  facts  agree  fully  with  the  development 
of  Greek  literature  in  prose  and  poetry.      But  to  carry 
back  the  use  of  writing  more  than  five  hundred  years  be- 
fore that  date  is  in  no  way  justified  by  the  existence  of 
this  inscription.      Bergk  himself  frankly  admits  this  as 
applying  to  Homer,  whose  period  he  puts  fully  two  cen- 
turies after  the  Trojan  War:  "It  is  impossible  to  decide, 
on  historical  evidence,  whether  these  poems  wrere,  in  the 
first  instance,  committed  to  writing.  .  .  .  We  are,  therefore, 
left  to  depend  upon  combinations.''     As  to  the  value  of 


NOTES  44-47.  83 

the  most  important  of  these  combinations,  see  Hartel, 
Zeitschr.  fur  d.  ostcrr.  Gym.,  1873,  p.  350  sqq.,  1874,  p.  822 
sqq.  While  I  express,  at  the  beginning  of  my  discussion 
of  the  origin  of  the  poems,  the  conviction  that  they  were 
not  originally  committed  to  writing,  and  therein  follow 
the  historical  course  of  the  investigation,  I  feel  myself 
obliged,  in  opposition  to  Bergk  and  especially  to  Volk- 
mann,  to  deny  that  this  conviction  includes  the  central 
point,  or  even  a  clearly  decisive  element  of  the  answer  to 
the  question  as  to  the  origin  of  the  poems.  On  the  con- 
trary, this  question  is  to  be  decided  only  by  arguments 
drawn  from  the  poems  themselves.  If  the  study  of  the 
poems  constrains  us  to  the  conclusions  stated  on  p.  59 
sqq.,  we  must  hold  fast  those  conclusions  whether  an  orig- 
inal use  of  writing  in  this  case  is  proved  on  other  grounds 
or  not,  although  it  cannot  be  overlooked  that  they  agree 
best  with  the  latter  supposition. 

47  Roth,  it  is  true,  says  (Abendl.  Philos.  II.  p.  41)  :  "  Ho- 
mer himself  mentions  the  art  of  writing,  and  that,  too,  as 
practised  in  the  heroic  age ;"  and,  certainly,  in  his  transla- 
tion of  II.  6  :  169  there  is  mention  of  it.  But  that  there  is 
no  such  mention  of  it  in  the  words  of  Homer  is  so  familiar 
a  fact  that  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  refer  a  reader  of  Homer 
to  Lehrs,  De  Aristarcho,  p.  103;  Sengebusch,  Diss.  II.  p.  42 
sqq.  Bergk  says  on  this  passage  :  "  The  well-known  pas- 
sage in  the  Iliad,  where  Proteus  intrusts  to  Bellerophon 
the  fateful  missive,  is  explained,  not  necessarily,  but  very 
probably,  as  referring  to  a  system  of  secret  writing. 
This,  however,  by  no  means  excludes,  but  rather  pre- 
supposes the  knowledge  and  use  of  the  ordinary  writ- 
ing." The  reason  given  by  Bergk  for  the  absence  in  Ho- 
mer of  any  mention  of  the  arts  of  reading  and  writing, 


84:  THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

though  they  were  known  before  the  Trojan  War,  viz., "  be- 
cause they  seemed  inconsistent  with  his  ideal  picture  of  a 
primitive  state  of  society,"  is  one  that  I  cannot  criticise,  be- 
cause I  do  not  understand  it.  Homer  finds  it  consistent 
witli  his  "picture  of  primitive  society"  to  mention  a  high 
degree  of  art  in  weaving,  in  the  working  of  metal,  ivory, 
wood,  not  as  produced  by  gods  only,  but  by  men  also,  on 
whom  Athene  and  Hephaestos  have  bestowed  such  gifts. 
How  would  the  art  of  writing,  if  in  use  before  the  heroic 
age  of  the  Iliad,  as  a  gift  of  Hermes  perhaps,  differ  from 
these  so  as  to  disturb  the  picture  of  primitive  society? 
But,  possibly,  for  it  is  not  easy  to  follow  out  his  analysis  of 
the  poem,  all  those  references  to  other  arts  of  civilization 
are  inventions  of  the  "audacious  reviser." 

48  Bekker,  Horn.  Blatter,  I.  p.  136  :  "  This  [Homeric] 
language,  developed  in  the  course  of  a  great  migration, 
under  the  unceasing  influences  of  the  meetings,  the  fric- 
tions, the  interminglings  of  kindred  tribes,  and  controlled 
only  by  song  and  the  lyre,  attained  indeed  to  a  great  wealth 
of  euphonious  forms,  but  seems  to  have  gone  through  the 
stage  of  "trying  all  possible  combinations,  and  to  have  had 
no  fixed,  unchanging,  exclusive  system  of  forms,  such  as 
came  in  later  by  the  general  spread  of  writing.  Litera 
scripta  manet."  On  the  other  hand,  Bergk,  Griech.  Lit.  I. 
p.  200:  "As  the  peculiar  orthography  of  the  poems  is  a 
conclusive  proof  of  their  great  age,  so  the  remarkably 
regular  and  transparent  form  of  the  language  shows  the 
wide  diffusion  in  early  times  of  the  art  of  writing.  The 
rare  purity  in  which  the  Greek  language  was  preserved  is 
scarcely  credible  without  constant  use  of  that  art,  which 
is  not  only  the  foundation  of  all  higher  cultivation,  but 
gives  to  language  its  settled  form  and  its  power  to  pro- 


NOTES  48-55.  85 

tect  itself  against  corrupting  influences."      Compare  on 
this  Hartel,  Zeitschr.  fur  d.  osterr.  Gyui.,  1873,  p.  352. 

49  The  AiQioirig  and  'I\iov  iripme  of  the  Milesian  Arkti- 
nos,  Welcker,Epische  Cycl.  II.    For  the  settling  of  the  date 
775  B.C.  as  the  cmpi]  of  Arktinos,  see  Sengebusch,  Jahn's 
Jahrb.  67. — KirchhofF  in  his  essay,  Quaestionum   Horn, 
particula  (Berlin,  1845),  proves  that  the  TLv-n-pia  of  Stasi- 
nos,  written  about  660  B.C.,  recognized  several  books  of  the 
Iliad  in  the  form  and  connection  in  which  we  have  them. 

50  The  laws  of  Zaleukos,  about  664  B.C.    Cf.  Wolf,  Proleg. 
p.  66  sqq. 

51  Sengebusch,  Diss.  II.  p.  45. 

52  The  authorities  for  this  important  fact  are  given  in 
Sengebusch,  Diss.  II.  pp.  27^41 ;  Diintzer,  Hoinerische  Ab- 
handlungen,  pp.  1-27.    The  historic  credibility  of  the  state- 
ments about  Peisistratos  is  criticised  by  Nutzhorn  (u.  27), 
pp.  16-66,  and  Volkmann. 

53  Sengebusch,  Diss.  I.  pp.  193-197. 

54  Sengebusch,  Diss.  I.  pp.  71  sq.,  186,  200  sqq. 

55  The  principles  of  text-criticism  in  regard  to  the  Ho- 
meric poems  which  have  been  accepted  since  Wolf's  time 
are  concisely  stated  by  L.  Friedlander,  Jahn?s  Jahrb.  79. 
The  relation  of  Wolf's  text  to  those  of  previous  editions 
and  to  Villoison's  edition  of  the  MS.  Ven.  454  is  stated  by 
Bekker,  Horn.  Blatter,  pp.  232,  296.    A  material  part  of  the 
principles  on  which  Bekker's  text-edition  of  1843  is  based 
will  be  found  in  his  criticism  of  Wolf 's  edition,  Horn.  Blat- 
ter, p.  29.    Bekker's  text  (1843)  is  the  foundation  of  the 
editions  which  have  since  appeared,  with  the  exception  of 
Dindorf 's  in  the  Teubner  series,  as  to  which  cf.  J.  La  Roche, 
Zeitschr.  fur  d.  osterr.  Gym.,  1863.    How  far  Bekker's  princi- 
ples were  modified  in  his  second  edition  of  1858  is  stated 


86  THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

in  the  preface  to  that  edition,  and  further  explanations  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Horn.  Blatter.  This  second  edition  was 
reviewed  by  W.  C.  Kayser,  Philologus,  vols.  xvii.  and  xviii.; 
Fricdlander,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  79;  Rumpf,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  81;  J. 
La  Roche,  Zeitschr.  fur  d.  osterr.  Gym.,  1860.  As  to  the  most 
recent  text-editions  with  critical  apparatus  of  the  Odyssey 
by  J.  La  Roche,  Leipzig,  1867,  and  A.  Nauck,  Berlin,  1874, 
see  A.  Ludwich,  Wissensch.  Monatsblatter,  1878 ;  Jahn's 
Jahrb.  109 ;  and  Eickholt,  Zeitschrift  fur  d.  Gymnasialwesen, 
1868. 

86  These  words  mark  the  limits  within  which  all  the  fol- 
lowing discussion  is  confined;  it  contains  no  conclusions 
to  which  the  two  Homeric  poems,  as  they  now  lie  before 
us,  do  not  lead  by  reasonable  inference.  It  is,  for  instance, 
possible  that  one  might  be  led,  by  comparison  of  the  de- 
velopment of  epic  poetry  in  other  nations  or  by  general 
reasonings,  to  hold  that,  before  the  existence  of  epic  lays  of 
moderate  compass  and  limited  to  single  incidents  of  the 
myth,  such  as  the  Iliad  implies,  there  must  be  assumed  as 
existing  epic  poems  of  equally  moderate  extent  but  cover- 
ing the  main  substance  of  the  whole  myth  with  less  detail. 
The  reasonableness  of  such  or  similar  assumptions  is  not 
here  discussed,  because  that  would  involve  abandonment 
of  the  ground  on  which  all  our  conclusions  are  based,  viz., 
the  facts  presented  to  us  in  Greek  literature. 

57  Goethe,  correspondence  with  Schiller,  No.  472 :  "  I  am 
more  than  ever  convinced  of  the  unity  and  indivisibility  of 
the  poem,  and  there  is  no  man  living,  nor  will  there  ever 
be,  who  can  settle  the  question.  I,  at  least,  find  myself 
every  moment  coming  back  to  a  mere  subjective  opinion ; 
so  has  it  been  with  others  before  us,  and  so  will  it  be  with 
others  after  us." 


NOTES  5C-GO.  87 

58  Nitzsch,  Sagenpoesie,  p.  89,  and  this  idea  is  carried  out 
at  length  in  pp.  184-273.     Cf.  Baumlein,  Commentatio  de 
Homero  ejusque  carminibus  (prefixed  to  the  Iliad  in  the 
Tauchnitz   series),  pp.  xx. -xxvii.,  particularly  p.  xxiii. : 
11  Xor  will  any  one  doubt  that  a  single,  and,  as  Nitzsch  has 
shown,  a  tragical  idea  runs  through  the  whole  Iliad,"  and 
again  in  Philol.  II.  p.  417.     Against  such  a  single  funda- 
mental idea  in  the  Iliad,  see  Diintzer,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  83,  and 
Supplernentband  2  (Hom.  Abhandlungen,  pp.  236,  410). 

59  Schomann,  De  reticentia  Homeri,  Opusc.  HI.  p.  12  sq., 
and  Jahn's  Jahrb.  69. 

60  Grote,  History  of  Greece,  Am.  ed.  II.  p.  179  sqq.     As  to 
the  method  in  which  Nitzsch  tries  to  bring  the  important 
passages  II.  11  :  609  sq. ;  16  :  72  sqq.  into  harmony  with  the 
ninth  book,  see  Schouiann,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  69,  and  De  reticen- 
tia Horn.,  Opusc.  III.  p.  15.     Franke's  revision  of  Faesi's  Ili- 
ad, in  the  note  on  the  former  passage  and  at  the  beginning 
of  the  ninth  book,  frankly  acknowledges  the  inconsistency. 
The  silence  of  La  Roche  as  to  the  difficulty  in  both  the  pas- 
sages quoted  is  a  neglect  of  the  function  of  an  explanatory 
edition.    Faesi's  note  on  the  passage  in  the  sixteenth  book, 
wfiere  Achilles,  when  Patroklos  begs  his  permission  to  go 
into  the  battle,  answers  that  the  Trojans  would  be  in  dis- 
graceful flight  instead  of  triumphant,  il  fioi  Kptiwv  'Aya/te/tvwv 
j/n-ta  £('c£ii},  "  if  Agamemnon  were  well  disposed  to  me,"  is  as 
follows :  "  The  haughty  Achilles  is  not  yet  willing  to  con- 
fess that  the  chief  blame  for  the  calamity  lies  on  him,  and 
refuses  to  remember  that  Agamemnon,  in  the  ninth  book, 
has  done  all  in  his  power  to  appease  him.     He  will  not  be 
put  in  the  wrong."     The  fact,  that  is,  that  the  here  inevita- 
ble reference  to  the  ninth  book  is  lacking,  is  twisted  into 
a  delicate  touch  of  psychological  portraiture,  but  Faesi 


88  THE    ORIGIN   OF    THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

could  hardly  deny  that  for  such  a  purpose  the  poet  ought 
to  use  and  would  have  used  other  means.  This  interpreta- 
tion really  substitutes  something  else  for  the  text.  The  ap- 
proving reference  in  Franke's  Faesi  to  the  exclusion  by  the 
early  critics  of  11 :  767-785  seems  hardly  justified.  The  es- 
sential reason  on  the  part  of  the  early  critics  (see  Schol. 
Ven.)  for  the  exclusion  of  these  lines  was  their  want  of  har- 
mony with  the  ninth  book,  a  point  of  view  which  this  ed- 
itor cannot  adopt;  and  the  assumption  of  an  interpolation 
is  reasonable  only  when  some  occasion  for  the  insertion  of 
it  can  be  shown. 

61  II.  15  : 63,  593.     Schomann,  Jalm's  Jahrb.  69. 

62  Lachmann  has  warned  us  (Friedlander,  Die  Horn.  Kri- 
tik,  p.  vii.)  how  uncertain  the  result  is  if  such  considera- 
tions are  allowed  much  weight.     Rash  conclusions  from  the 
t'iiraZ  tlprinkva  and  from  the  differences  of  vocabulary  be- 
tween the  Iliad  and  Odyssey  are  discouraged  by  the  statis- 
tics of  L.  Friedlander,  Die  kritische  Benutzung  der  aVa£ 
tlprjusva,  Philol.  6,  and  Dissertatio  de  vocabulis  Horn.,  quae 
in  alterutro  carmine  non  inveniuntur  I.-III.  (Universitats- 
Schriften,  Konigsberg,  1858-59).    This,  however,  diminishes 
in  no  degree  the  value  of  careful  and  thorough  investiga- 
tions in  this  direction,  such  as  C.  A.  J.  Hoffmann's  Quaestio- 
nes  Homericae  (Clausthal,  1848) ;  J.  La  Roche's  Homerische 
Studien  (Wien,  1861),  especially  p.  vii.  sq. ;  L.  Friedliinder's 
Die  Garten  des  Alkinous  und  der  Gebrauch  des  Prasens  bei 
Homer,  Philol.  6 ;  or  of  special  observations,  like  those  of 
Liesegang,  Zwei  Eigentlmmlichkeiten  des  16.  und  17.  Buches 
der  Ilias,  Philol.  6  (against  which  see  Nitzsch,  Die  Apostro- 
phe in  Ilias  und  Odyssee,  Philol.  16) ;  and  Koch,  Ueber  das 
Vorkommen  gewisser  Formeln  in  manchen  Thcilen  der  Ili- 
as, auderer  fur  dieselbe  Sache  in  anderen  Theilen,  Philol.  7. 


NOTES  61-65.  89 

"We  may  confidently  expect  that  the  thorough  investiga- 
tion of  the  Homeric  poems  in  regard  to  matters  of  syntax 
and  vocabulary  which  is  now  just  started  will  contribute 
to  the  correction  or  confirmation  of  the  conclusions  which 
have  been  reached  hitherto  mainly  on  other  lines  of  evi- 
dence. A  recent  example  of  most  comprehensive,  keen- 
sighted,  and  conscientious  investigation  of  this  kind  is  W. 
Hartel's  Beitrage  zur  Homerischen  Prosodie  und  Metrik, 
in  his  Homerische  Studien,  Sitzungsberichte  der  Phil.-Hist. 
Classe  der  Wiener  Akademie,  I.  vol.  68  (second  edition,  Ber- 
lin, 1873),  II.  vol.  76,  III.  vol.  78. 

63  A  number  of  these  little  points  are  brought  together 
in  Faesi's  Iliad,  Introd.  p.  vii.,  with  references  to  the  notes, 
where  the  attempt  is  made  to  reduce  the  contradictions  as 
much  as  possible ;  in  Franke's  revision  (Introd.  p.  v.)  the 
notes  are  free  from  the  endeavor  to  disguise  and  explain 
away  the  extent  of  the  contradictions. 

M  Cf.  II.  16  :  777  with  11 :  86.  Schomann,  Jahn's  Jahrb. 
69,  p.  18,  considers  Kltzsch's  attempt  to  reconcile  the  pas- 
sages. Faesi's  attempt  to  diminish  the  inconsistency  does 
violence  to  the  language,  and  is  in  conflict  with  his  own 
note  on  8  :  66.  Franke  (Introd.  p.  xxxii.  and  note  on 
11  :  86)  and  La  Roche  (notes  on  the  two  passages)  rec- 
ognize the  contradiction  without  trying  to  smooth  it 
away.  The  essay  by  A.  Kiner,  Die  Chronologic  der  Ilias, 
Jahn's  Jahrb.  83,  constructs  a  complete  table  of  the  days  in 
the  action  of  the  Iliad,  without  paying  any  attention  to 
such  little  matters  as  these. 

65  Schomann,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  69,  p.  19.  On  this  point, 
which  every  discussion  of  the  subject  touches,  I  refer  to 
Schomann's  article,  because  it  includes  a  consideration  of 
Nitzsch's  argument  in  defence  of  the  unity. 


90  THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

66  Faesi  himself  admits,  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth 
book,  that  this  and  the  following  book  contain  few  points 
of  connection  with  the  four  that  precede  them,  and  that 
they  were   originally  planned   as  an  independent  poem. 
Yet  his  translation,  in  the  note  on  1G  :  2,  of  Trapiararo,  unsup- 
ported by  any  other  case  in  the  Iliad,  and  impossible  here, 
by  reason  of  rbv  Si  ISuv,  in  16  :  5,  and  his  supposition  that 
the  first  meeting  of  Achilles  and  Patroklos  is  already  passed 
without  mention,  can  have  no  other  object  than  to  explain 
away  the   omission   of  the  information  which  Patroklos 
was  to  bring.     La  Roche's  silence  does  not  solve  the  dif- 
ficulty. 

67  Different  positions  of  the  battle,  in  immediately  con- 
nected narratives,  may  be  seen  by  comparison  of  1 1 :  824  with 
12 :  35-39.     See  Lachmann,  Betrachtungen,  p.  45.    Franke's 
Faesi  states  here  the  simple  fact  that  "  the  twelfth  book 
brings  at  length  the  battle  which  has  been  in  prospect  since 
the  end  of  the  seventh  book."     For  the  cases  of  variation  in 
locality,  see   Schomann,  Jahn's  Jahrb.   69,  De   retipentia 
Horn.,  Opusc.  III.  p.  21  sq.,  notes  8,  9. 

68 II.  13 :  345-360,  compared  with  13  : 10-39.  See  A.  Jacob, 
Ueber  die  Entstehung  der  Ilias  und  Odyssee,  p.  270  sq. 
Faesi  (on  13 :  352)  strives  to  hide  the  inconsistency  in  the 
narrative  by  an  impossible  translation  of  XaQpy  inrtZavaSue, 
which  he  retains  in  his  third  edition,  although  he  has  added 
to  the  note  on  345  the  admission  (from  Nitzsch,  Sagenpoe- 
sie,  p.  264)  that  perhaps  lines  345-360  may  not  have  origi- 
nally belonged  in  this  place.  La  Roche,  contrary  to  his  cus- 
tom, touches  on  this  difficulty,  and  seems  to  try  to  solve  it 
KUTO.  TO  cua-rrM^vov  (see  note  79),  for  he  remarks,  on  352, 
"  that  Poseidon  had  in  the  meantime  returned  into  the  sea 
is  left  unmcntioned  by  the  poet ;  in  239  it  is  said  UVTIQ  ?/3»j 


NOTES  G6-71.  91 

&oe  ufi  irovov  dvcpiZv."  Bergk  (Gr.  Lit.  I.  p.  607)  denies  the 
existence  of  any  inconsistency. 

69  See  the  instances  in  full  in  A.  Jacob,  as  above,  p.  284 
sqq. ;  Lachmann,  Betrachtungen,  p.  35.  On  the  attempts 
to  minimize  the  contradictions  by  interpretation,  or  to  re- 
move them  by  exclusion  of  lines,  as  by  Faesi  on  11  :  193, 
see  Friedlander,  Die  Horn.  Kritik,  p.  35  sq.  Franke's  Faesi, 
on  11  :  193,  openly  states  the  difficulty  and  the  different 
possible  solutions.  La  Roche  says  nothing  about  it. 

70 II.  16  :  793-815,  compared  with  17  :  13, 16, 125, 187, 205. 
Faesi's  note  on  17  :  13  misses  the  real  point  of  the  matter. 
It  is  true  that "  the  poet  could  not  assume  that  Apollo  had 
taken  the  arms  of  the  slain  hero  away  with  him ;"  but  the 
difficulty  is,  that  after  Patroklos  was  fvpvog  (16  :  815),  and 
the  gods  had  taken  his  annor  from  his  shoulders  (16  :  846), 
there  is  no  propriety  in  the  statements  that  others  stripped 
him  of  them  (17  : 125, 187,  205).  As  to  the  combination  of 
different  narratives  in  this  part  of  the  poem,  see  Schiitz, 
De  Patrocleae  compositione  (Anclam,  1845). 

71  On  the  general  character  of  the  narrative  in  books  XI.- 
XVIII.  of  the  Iliad,  see  the  frank  statement  of  Schomann, 
Jahn's  Jahrb.  69.  For  the  methods  of  bringing  order  out  of 
this  confusion,  see  Nitzsch,  Sagenpoesie,  pp.  240  sqq.,  274 
sqq.  Among  these  methods  is  the  discovery  that  certain 
sections  of  the  poem  are  to  be  regarded  as  containing  inci- 
dents concurrent  in  time,  wrhere,  however,  the  poet  has  un- 
fortunately neglected  to  indicate  the  concurrence.  This 
very  useful  theory  of  narratives  parallel  in  time  is  accepted 
by  Bergk  in  another  connection,  Gr.  Lit.  I.  p.  657,  704.  Cf. 
W.  Hartel,  Zeitschr.  fur  d.  osterr.  Gym.,  1873.  As  to  the 
contradictions  in  this  portion  of  the  poem,  there  is  general 
agreement  in  the  discussions  by  G.  Hermann  (work  cited 


92  THE    ORIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

in  note  26),  Lachraann  (same  note),  E.  Cauer  (Ueber  die  Ur- 
form  einiger  Rhapsodien  der  Ilias,  Berlin,  1850),  W.  Rib- 
beck  (Philol.  8),  A.  Jacob  (note  68) ;  but  the  hypotheses  as 
to  the  parts  of  which  it  is  probably  composed  differ  consid- 
erably. 

72  Lessing,  Laokoon,  XVI. 

73  By  the  combination  of  separate  narratives  as  an  occa- 
sion of  difficulty,  I  refer,  in  the  examples  in  the  text,  always 
to  connection  in  subject-matter,  not  to  the  words  which 
form  the  transition  from  one  narrative  to  another.    The 
difference  between  the  two  is  plainly  seen  in  the  case  of 
the  first  and  second  books,  where  both  come  into  consider- 
ation, but  in  different  ways.     The  case  itself  is  interesting, 
on  account  of  the  devices  employed  to  solve  the  difficulty. 
That  the  second  book  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  proper  con- 
tinuation of  the  first  in  subject-matter  was  convincingly 
shown  by  G.  Hermann  (Opusc.  v.  p.  57).     Since  he  pointed 
out  the  difficulties,  no  one  has  been  able  to  pass  them  over 
in  silence.     To  meet  his  arguments,  Nitzsch  (Sagenpoesie) 
takes  refuge  in  "  the  condition  of  the  myth,"  thus  tacitly 
admitting  the  impossibility  of  an  explanation.     Nagelsbach 
(Anmerk.  zur  II.  2.  Aufl.)  declares  the  second  book  neces- 
sary for  the  purpose  of  the  poet,  "  to  bring  before  us  the 
feeling  in  the  army,  the  attitude  of  the  chiefs  towards  Ag- 
amemnon;" and  that  the  dream  does  not  turn  out  destruc- 
tive (ouXoe),  "  does  not,"  says  he,  "  disturb  us  in  the  least ; 
the  decision  of  Zeus,  to  give  victory  to  the  Trojans,  finds  a 
serious  obstacle  in  the  valor  of  the  Greeks,  which  hinders 
its  execution."     But,  however  true  it  is  that  the  feeling  of 
the  army  is  vividly  brought  before  us  in  the  second  book, 
still  this  ought  not,  if  the  second  book  is  a  continuation  of 
the  first  in  the  original  composition,  to  be  done  under  cir- 


NOTES  72-73.  93 

cumstances  whicli  do  not  agree  with  the  first  book.  This 
point,  which  is  the  only  one  really  in  question,  is  not  touched 
by  that  explanation  of  the  poet's  purpose.  And  if  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  decree  of  Zeus  was  hindered  by  the  valor  of 
the  Greeks,  would  not,  and  ought  not,  a  poem  conceived  by 
a  single  mind  to  have  given  us  a  hint  that  vvip  alaav  'Axaioi 
Qeprfpoi  f/ffav  ?  Baumlein  (Philol.  7),  instead  of  proving  the 
unity  of  the  two  books  in  subject,  offers  only  the  assertion 
that  there  is  such  a  unity,  quoting  as  proof  certain  lines  in 
the  second  book  which  refer  to  the  first.  These  lines,  which 
no  one  has  overlooked  in  the  discussion  of  the  inner  connec- 
tion of  the  two  books,  prove  nothing  but  the  intention  to 
adapt  one  to  the  other.  Baumlein  further  describes  the 
conduct  of  Agamemnon,  in  the  council  and  the  assembly 
of  the  second  book,  as  "  intelligible  on  psychological  princi- 
ples from  the  events  of  the  first  book ;"  and  therein  sug- 
gests an  idea,  whicli  is  expanded  with  all  confidence  in  an 
essay  by  A.  Gobel  (Mutzell's  G.  Z.,  1854).  In  that  essay  we 
have  the  gap  between  the  two  narratives  completely  filled 
by  imagination,  so  as  to  make  the  connection  seem  all  right. 
These  capricious  fancies  (of  which  an  example  is  given  in 
note  79)  Faesi  regards  as  well-founded  reasoning,  and  bases 
on  them  his  unhesitating  statement  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  book,  that  it  "  stands  in  close  connection  with  the 
first  book,  and  assumes  precisely  the  same  situation  of  affairs' 
and  state  of  feeling  that  we  see  at  its  end."  This  untena- 
ble assertion  Franke  displaces  by  the  more  moderate  re- 
mark, "the  second  book  narrates  the  first  step  taken  by 
Zeus  towards  the  fulfilment  of  his  promise  to  Thetis."  A 
very  different  question  is  the  one  as  to  the  words  which 
form  the  connecting  link  between  the  first  and  second 
books.  Lachmann,  in  the  introduction  to  his  Betrachtun- 


94:  THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC    POEMS. 

gen,  mentions,  as  a  striking  illustration  of  the  fact  that  be- 
tween two  successive  sections  of  the  Iliad  it  seems  often  to 
be  implied  in  the  language  that  one  song  ends  and  another 
begins,  the  lines  1 :  609  sqq.  and  2  : 1,  sq.  "  Neither  is  the 
antithesis  complete,  as  if  it  were  '  All  went  to  bed  and  slept, 
but  Zeus  slept  not,'  instead  of  which  we  have  '  The  gods 
went  to  bed,  and  also  Zeus  slept.  The  other  gods  and  men 
slept,  but  Zeus  did  not ;'  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the , 
statement  was  to  follow  at  once,  '  Zeus  slept  not,  but  sum- 
moned the  dream-god,'  was  there  any  object  in  first  men- 
tioning that  by  him  lay  golden-throned  Hera,  who,  how- 
ever, was  not  to  know  of  the  sending  of  the  dream."  This 
puts  a  very  awkward  obstacle  in  the  way  of  interpretation, 
and  to  remove  it  one  of  two  means  must  be  employed; 
either  KaOtvSe  (1  :  611)  does  not  mean  "  he  slept,"  or  OVK  ?%£ 
vtidvpoQ  VTTVOG  (2  :  2)  does  not  mean  "  he  slept  not."  Both 
means  have  actually  been  employed.  KaOwSe  is  translated 
"  lie  lay  down  to  sleep  "  by  Gross  (Vindiciae  Horn.  I.),  with 
quotation  of  Od.  4:  304;  6:1;  7:344;  8:313;  20:141;  "he 
went  to  sleep,"  by  Dodcrlein  (on  II.  1  :  611),  who  quotes  the 
same  passages;  "he  lay  in  bed,"  by  Ameis  (on  Od.  15  :  5). 
The  passages  in  Od.  8  :  313,  337,  342  are  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, for  there  wdeiv  is  a  mere  euphemism  for  ^iXortjn  /.ityfjvai. 
The  other  quoted  passages,  where  it  is  indifferent  which 
sense,  "  to  sleep  "  or  "  to  fall  asleep,"  is  given  to  the  word, 
or  where  the  latter  is  admissible,  can  prove  nothing  for  a 
passage  where  a  positive  preference  for  one  meaning  is  es- 
sential to  the  interpretation.  Moreover,  this  view  ignores 
the  weight  which  the  secondary  meaning  of  the  word  ought 
to  have  in  determining  its  original  sense.  These  consid- 
erations, perhaps,  influenced  Nagclsbach,in  the  second  edi- 
tion of  his  commentary,  to  speak  of  this  translation  as  "  a 


NOTES  74-77.  95 

wide-spread  error."  He  tries  the  other  method,  explaining 
A/a  c1  OVK  «x«  vqtivpoQ  virvof,  "  Zeus  was  not  chained  in  sleep 
the  whole  night,  but  after  a  time  he  awoke,  and  meditated 
how  to  fulfil  his  promise  to  Thetis."  So  also  La  Roche. 
But  this  is  not  in  the  words,  for  OVK  t\£  and  o  y£  ptpfiripiZe 
are  put  together  as  coincident  in  time,  and  it  is  not  said 
that  he  awoke  from  sleep,  as  it  is  in  Od.  15  :  8,  though  Na- 
gelsbach  quotes  that  passage  as  sustaining  his  view.  The 
other  passage  which  he  quotes,  II.  9  :  713  and  10  :  1-4,  is 
simply  another  instance  of  inconsistency  between  the  end 
of  one  lay  and  the  beginning  of  another.  Both  of  these 
means  are  combined  by  Doderlein  (on  II.  5  :  2),  and  by 
Faesi  in  his  notes ;  but  Franke,  in  his  edition  of  Faesi, 
rejects  all  such  artifices  (Introd.  p.  v.,  note,  and  on  2  :  2). 
This  instance  illustrates  the  difference  between  difficulties 
in  the  phrases  of  transition  and  those  in  the  continuity  of 
the  subject-matter,  to  which  latter  class  all  our  examples 
belong.  It  may  also  show  how,  in  almost  every  case,  the 
conflict  of  the  conservatives  and  radicals  has  had  a  long 
history. 

74  Instead  of  the  expositions  of  the  startling  want  of  se- 
quence here  (e.  g.  G.  Hermann,  De  interpol.  Horn.,  Opusc. 
v.),  it  may  be  well  to  read  the  enthusiastic  praise  of  the 
passage  by  Xitzsch  (Sagenpoesie).    Faesi's  remarks,  in  the 
Introduction,  p.  xxi.,  and  in  the  note  on  II.  3 : 15,  can  hardly 
be  reconciled.     Franke  substitutes  for  the  former  the  sim- 
ple statement  that  "the  often  announced  and  anticipated 
battle  of  the  two  armies  is  still  postponed." 

75  Lachmann,  Betrachtungen,  p.  22 ;   A.  Jacob,  Ueber  die 
Entstehung,  etc.,  p.  215. 

76  A.  Jacob,  as  above,  p.  209. 

77  Of  these  works  perhaps  the  best  for  the  unprofessional 


96  THE   OKIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

reader  is  that  by  A.  Jacob,  which  states  the  inconsistencies 
minutely  and  gives  the  principal  passages  in  German. 

78  See  this  point  developed  in  A.  Kochly's  De  Iliadis  car- 
minibus  diss.  III.  p.  6  sqq. 

79  Among  these  harmonizing  devices,  the  most  prominent 
is  the  supposition  that  the  poet  omits  to  mention,  and  leaves 
the  reader  to  supply,  some  particular  which  is  essential  to 
the  understanding  of  the  narrative.     To  what  an  extreme 
Nitzsch  carries  the  use  of  this  device,  Kara  rb  auairuinvov,  is 
shown  by  Schomann  (De  ret.  Horn.)  and  Kochly  (De  II.  carm. 
diss.  III.).    It  is  used  also  by  Faesi,  for  instance,  in  the  notes 
on  II.  3  :  249,  259  (where  also  Ameis,  La  Roche,  and  Franke 
do  the  same),  on  II.  5  :  510  (where  Franke  recognizes  its  in- 
adequacy), and  elsewhere.     The  use  of  it  by  Ameis  and  La 
Roche  on  II.  5  : 133  surely  needs  no  refutation  (see  Franke's 
note  on  the  passage).    What  may  be  done  by  a  free  use  of 
this  time-honored  device  may  be  seen  from  an  instance  in 
A.  Gobel's  treatise,  mentioned  in  note  73.     The  line  II.  1 : 
487  is  usually  supposed  to  contain  nothing  more  than  the 
simple  fact  of  a  dispersion  of  the  men  to  their  tents  and 
ships,  as  in  other  similar  lines  (e.  g.  II.  19  :  277 ;  23  :  3 ;  24  :  2). 
But  Gobel  finds  in  it  "  they  scattered  themselves  hurriedly 
among  the  ships  and  tents,  as  if  a  guilty  conscience  hunted 
them  away,  or,  rather,  as  if  a  mysterious  storm-cloud  was 
hovering  over  the  Greek  camp."     On  such  fancies,  which 
any  sound  principles  of  interpretation  condemn,  is  built  up 
the  psychological  explanation  of  the  connection  between  the 
first  two  books  of  the  Iliad.     A  very  successful  contrivance 
for  removing  contradictions  is  the  assumption  of  an  inter- 
polation.    That  many  such  would  creep  into  an  epic  poem 
which  was  long  preserved  only  by  oral  tradition  is  certain ; 
but  there  is  no  just  ground  for  holding  that  a  given  passage 


NOTES  78-80.  97 

is  interpolated  in  the  fact  that  it  disturbs  the  continuity  of 
the  poeui  as  a  whole.  Nitzsch's  effort  by  this  means  to 
bring  the  speech  of  Achilles,  II.  18  :  49-91,  into  harmony 
•with  the  ninth  book  (Sagenpoesie,  p.  180  sqq.)  is  especially 
characteristic  in  this  respect,  and  is  thoroughly  examined  by 
Schomann,  Jalm's  Jahrb.  69,  De  ret.  Horn.  pp.  13-15.  The 
only  conditions  under  which  the  assumption  of  an  interpola- 
tion is  justifiable  are  laid  down  distinctly  and  decisively  by 
Kirchhoff,  Die  Composition  der  Odyssee,  p.  201  (Philol.  19). 
Friedlander's  idea  (Die  Horn.  Kritik),  that  these  discrepan- 
cies are,  in  most  cases,  to  be  regarded  as  "  lingering  traces 
of  a  long  separation  "  of  the  parts  of  a  poem  originally  one, 
is  applied  far  too  freely  in  interpretation. 

80  The  fact  that  these  contradictions  run  through  the 
whole  extent  of  the  poem  is  a  serious  objection  to  Grote's  in- 
termediate hypothesis  (History  of  Greece,  Am.  ed.  II.  p.  175 
sqq.),  that  our  Iliad  is  made  up  of  two  long  poems,  an  Achil- 
leid,  consisting  of  books  I.,  VIII.,  XL-XXII.,  and  an  Iliad, 
consisting  of  books  II.-VII.,  with  perhaps  IX.  and  X.  This 
theory  Friedlander  (Die  Horn.  Kritik,  etc.)  endeavors  to  es- 
tablish with  additional  arguments.  It  is  attacked,  as  pre- 
serving the  unity  of  the  poems  too  much,  by  W.  Ribbeck 
(Philol.  8),  and  as  sacrificing  the  unity,  by  Baumlein  (Philol. 
11).  [See,  also,  Transactions  of  the  Am.  Philological  Asso- 
ciation, 1876.  A  new  form  of  Grote's  theory,  advanced  by 
W.  D.  Geddes,  Problem  of  the  Homeric  Poems  (London, 
1878),  is  open  to  the  objection  mentioned  above.  The  chief 
novelty  of  this  theory  is,  that  it  tries  to  show  by  internal 
arguments  that  the  portion  of  the  Iliad  regarded  by  Grote 
as  an  addition  to  the  original  Achilleid  (with  a  few  scat- 
tered passages)  was  composed  by  the  author  of  the  Odys- 
sey, and  that  to  him,  an  Asiatic  Greek,  belong  the  name 

7 


98  THE   ORIGIN    OF    TTIE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

Homer  and  the  traditions  connected  with  that  name. — TR.] 
Essentially  the  same  position  was  taken,  before  the  publi- 
cation of  Grote's  theory,  by  Diintzer,  Jahn's  Jahrb.,  Suppl. 
2  (also  in  his  Horn.  Abhandlungen). 

81  Roth,  indeed  (Abendl.  Philos.  II.),  regards  Homer  as  the 
poet  who  wrote  the  Iliad,  the  Odyssey,  the  Thebaid,  and 
several  other  great  epics,  each  by  a  single  effort  of  inde- 
pendent creative  power  ;  but  he,  with  all  his  other  learn- 
ing, has  not  grasped  the  real  point  of  the  Homeric  ques- 
tion, as  was  shown  in  note  41. 

82  That  the  composer  of  the  Iliad  as  a  single  poem  took 
up  into  his  work  earlier  songs,  largely  or  entirely  unaltered, 
is  repeatedly  affirmed  by  Nitzsch  (Sagenpoesie,  pp.  109, 
123, 126,  etc.)  and  Baunilein  (essay  prefixed  to  the  Tauch- 
nitz  edition,  p.  xx.  etc.).   How  slightly  the  view  here  adopt- 
ed by  Nitzsch  differs  from  that  which  he  opposes  is  shown 
by  Schomann  (De  ret.  Horn.)  and  Kochly  (De  II.  carui.  diss. 
III.).    Bergk  (Gr.  Lit.  I.  p.  523)  remarks  against  this  view  : 
"  The  style  of  those  earlier  lays  would  not  fit  into  the  new 
form  of  art ;  therefore  they  cannot  have  been  incorporated 
bodily  into  the  new  poems,  but  can  only  have  served,  like 
rough  sketches  of  a  picture,  to  stimulate  and  inspire  the 
creative  genius  who  laid  the  foundation  of  Greek  epic  po- 
etry."   Diintzer  disposes  of  a  portion  of  those  passages  in 
which  Lachniann  found  his  evidence  of  inconsistency  as 
arbitrary  insertions  by  the  rhapsodes  (on  which  see  note 
112).     As  to  the  remaining  genuine  body  of  the  poems,  he 
says  (Horn.  Abhandl.  p.  xii.) :  "  That  each  of  the  two  great 
poems  was  originally  a  single  whole  we  dare  not  assume ; 
for  neither  does  the  action,  in  its  main  features,  constitute 
a  single  unity,  nor  does  the  same  poetic  spirit  animate  the 
whole."    In  this  place  may  be  mentioned  the  "  new  hypoth- 


NOTES  81-83.  99 

esis "  of  J.  Minckwitz  (see  note  27),  according  to  which  a 
bard  of  the  people,  by  name  Horner,  living  at  the  time  of 
the  Trojan  war,  having  acquired  unwonted  facility  of  ex- 
"  pression  by  long  practice  from  early  youth  in  the  produc- 
tion of  lyric  and  short  epic  poems,  composed  a  number  of 
detached  lays  upon  the  heroic  deeds  of  the  Trojan  war  and 
the  fortunes  of  the  Greek  chiefs  on  their  return  home,  which 
were  received  with  great  applause  by  those  who  heard  them. 
These  detached  lays,  connected  only  in  subject-matter,  and 
varying  in  style  from  the  very  beginning,  were  handed 
down  orally  for  centuries  by  the  rhapsodes,  until,  in  a 
somewhat  mutilated  and  time-worn  shape,  they  were  col- 
lected together  by  Peisistratos.  The  apparent  unity  of  the 
Iliad  and  Odyssey  is  due  to  editorial  revision,  which  pieced 
them  together,  as  well  as  might  be,  with  all  possible  fidelity 
to  the  existing  form  of  each  portion.  The  one  important 
feature  of  this  "  new  hypothesis,"  that  which  puts  it  in  op- 
position to  Lachmann  on  one  side  and  to  Kitzsch  on  the 
other,  the  supposition  of  a  single  poet  for  many  separate 
lays,  may  be  found  in  the  Blatter  fur  literarische  Unterhal- 
tung,  1844,  N.  126-129  (cf.  Curtius,  Zeitschr.  fur  d.  osterr. 
Gym.,  1854).  This  theory  does  not  touch  the  most  essen- 
tial points,  the  original  existence  of  independent  lays,  not 
designed  to  form  one  story,  and  the  combination  of  them 
as  a  subsequent  stage  of  their  history.  The  impossibilities 
it  contains,  along  with  much  that  is  true  and  generally  ad- 
mitted, cannot  be  discussed  here. 

83  Nitzsch,  Sagenpoesie,  p.  281  sq.  A  conjectural  analy- 
sis of  the  Iliad  into  its  original  songs  is  offered  by  Kochly, 
Iliadis  carmina  XVI.  (Leipzig,  1866).  The  reasons  for  his 
analysis  are  given  in  a  series  of  monographs  ("  De  Iliadis 
cat-minibus  dissertationes"  in  the  Zurich  University  pro- 


100          THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE    IIOMEKIC    POEMS. 

grammes  from  1850  on,  and  "  Hektor's  Losung,"  in  the 
Gratulations-Schrift  der  Ziir.  Univ.  an  Welcker,  1858).  His 
views  are  assailed  or  modified  in  many  particulars  by  W. 
Eibbeck,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  85,  and  by  J.  La  Roche,  Zeitschr.  fur 
d.  osterr.  Gym.,  1862. 

84  See  the  admirable  development  of  this  point  by  W. 
"Wackernagel,  in  the  essay  mentioned  in  note  15  (II.  p.  ?G 
sqq.). 

85  The  only  exception  to  this  remark  is,  that  the  close  of 
the  Odyssey,  from  23 :  297  on,  which  Aristarchus  long  ago 
rejected,  was  subjected,  not  long  after  the  appearance  of 
Wolf's  Prolegomena,  to  thorough  examination  by  F.  A.  W. 
Spohn,  Conimentatio  de  extrema  Odysseae  parte,  etc.  (1816). 

86  This  opinion  is  expressed  not  only  by  Nitzsch,  Bauui- 
lein,  Grote  (II.  p.  164  sqq.,  Am.  edition),  Friedlander  (Die 
Horn.  Kritik),  but  also  by  Schomanu,  in  the  often-mentioned 
review,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  69.     "  To  regard  the  Odyssey  as  a 
patchwork  of  originally  independent  lays  seems  to  me  rank 
absurdity,  although  it  is  certain  that  it  contains  interpola- 
tions, some  of  them  of  considerable  extent,  which,  however. 
can  be  positively  recognized  as  such.     But  the  poem  as  a 
whole  is  the  noble  conception  of  a  lofty  genius,  who  had  in 
this  kind  of  poetry  no  model,  and,  so  far  as  we  can  judge, 
no  -worthy  imitator."     On  this  Sengebusch  (Horn.  diss.  II.) 
remarks  that  he  fears  Schoniann  will  some  day  seem  to  him- 
self to  have  decided  with  more  force  than  truth.     Bernhar- 
dy  (Gr.  Lit.  2d  ed.  II.  p.  119)  says  of  the  Odyssey :  "  Here  we 
find  the  epic  conception  to  have  advanced  not  only  to  the 
having  one  person  as  a  moral  centre,  but  also  to  unity  of 
artistic  construction  ;  the  action  proceeds  in  strictly  nat- 
ural sequence,  the  plot  is  far  more  compact  than  that  of  the 
Iliad,  and  all  its  parts  work  together  to  one  end.     With  a 


NOTES  84-87.  101 

fully  developed  art,  the  poet  of  the  Odyssey  groups  the  ele- 
ments of  his  scheme,  and  makes  them  easily  co-operate  in 
a  sphere  of  sober  thought  combined  with  serene  wisdom. 
His  poem,  which  is  the  earliest  example  of  the  organized 
artistic  epic  style,  constitutes  a  chief  part  of  the  present 
Odyssey,  and  to  his  original  shaping  of  the  plot  is  due  the 
precise  interaction  of  the  incidents,  and  the  regular  pro- 
gressive advance  through  them  to  the  catastrophe."  On 
the  other  hand,  Bekker,  at  the  close  of  his  criticism  of  the 
opening  lines  of  the  Odyssey  (Horn.  Blatter,  p.  107),  says : 
"It  would  not  be  much  to  the  credit  of  the  Greek  intellect 
if  Wolf's  statement  (Proleg.  p.  cxviii.)  were  true,  that  the 
admirable  plan  and  structure  of  the  Odyssey  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  noblest  monument  of  Greek  genius."  [To 
the  same  effect  Steinthal,  Zeitschr.  fur  Volkerpsychologie 
und  Sprachwissenschaft,  7, 1871. — TR.] 

87  Apart  from  the  unimportant  book  by  Heerklotz,  Be- 
trachtungen  liber  die  Odyssee,  Trier,  1854  (see  Friedlander, 
Jahn's  Jahrb.  79),  and  the  valuable  remarks  in  A.  Jacob's 
work  mentioned  in  note  68,  most  of  the  discussions  bear- 
ing on  the  origin  of  the  Odyssey  have  been  confined  to  sep- 
arate parts  of  the  poem,  e.  g.  on  the  opening  lines  by  Bek- 
ker (Horn.  Blatter);  on  the  Telemachie  by  Hennings  (1858 ; 
cf.  Friedlander,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  79 ;  Baumlein,  Jahn's  Jahrb. 
81) ;  on  the  opening  lines  of  the  fifth  book  by  Schmitt  (De 
secundo  in  Od.  deorum  concilio,  Friburg,  1852) ;  on  the 
gardens  of  Alkinous  by  L.  Friedlander  (Philol.  6) ;  on  the 
eleventh  book  by  Lauer  (De  Od.  libri  XI.  forma  genuina  et 
patria,  Berlin,  1843) ;  on  the  first  thirteen  books  by  Kochly 
(Zeitschr.  fur  d.  osterr.  Gym.,  1862 ;  reprinted,  with  notes  and 
a  statement  as  to  the  separate  lays  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
poem,  in  the  Verhandlungen  der  21.  Versammlung  deut- 


102          THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

scher  Philologen,  etc.,  Leipzig,  1863)  ;  on  the  XIII.-XIX. 
books  by  R.  Volkmann  (Quaestiones  epicae,  Leipzig,  1854)  ; 
Rhode  (Schulprogramme,  Dresden,  1848,  Brandenburg, 
1858;  cf.  Friedlander,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  79);  Meister  (Philol. 
8) ;  on  the  twentieth  book  by  Bekker  (Horn.  Blatter) ;  on 
the  portion  from  23  :  297  through  by  Liesegang  (De  extre- 
ma  Od.  parte,  Bielefeld,  1855). 

88  This  point  in  regard  to  the  Odyssey  is  stated  -with 
praiseworthy  frankness,  and  proved  by  conclusive  instan- 
ces, in  Faesi's  introduction  to  his  Odyssey,  4th  ed.  pp.  37- 
44. 

89  Kirchhoff,  Die  Horn.  Odyssee,  p.  viii. 

90  A.  Jacob,  as  above  (note  68),  p.  475  sq.    See  also  note 
109. 

91  A.  Jacob,  pp.  508-514. 

92  A.  Jacob,  p.  363  sqq.;  Faesi,  p.  39.    As  to  the  confused 
advice  which  Athene  gives  Telemachos  in  the  first  book,  see 
Kirchhoff,  Die  Composition  der  Odyssee,  I. ;  Friedlander, 
Analecta  Homerica,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  Suppl.  3 ;  Kammer,  Die 
Einheit  der  Odyssee.   Friedlander  (Horn.  Kritik,  and  so  after 
hiniNitzsch,Epische  Poesie)  seeks  to  remove  the  difficulty 
as  to  the  unexplained  prolongation  of  the  stay  of  Telema- 
chos at  Sparta  as  follows:  "This  delay  is  undeniably  in 
conflict  with  his  original  design.     But  the  freedom  which 
the  poet  here  allows  himself  is  the  less  surprising,  because 
he  might  reasonably  assume  that  no  one  of  his  hearers 
would  notice  it.    The  really  wonderful  thing  is,  that  this  is 
the  only  instance  worth  mention  of  such  poetic  license  in 
the  whole  poem ;  for  the  few  other  inconsistencies  are  much 
more  probably  to  be  ascribed  to  defective  preservation  than 
to  careless  composition  of  the  poem."    The  examples  given 
in  the  text  may  perhaps  show  that  this  is  not  the  "  only 


NOTES  88-103.  103 

instance  worth  mention  of  such  license,"  and  also  that  the 
inconsistencies  run  too  deep  into  the  structure  of  the  poem 
to  be  ascribed  to  "  defective  preservation." 

93  Schmitt,  in  the  work  mentioned  in  note  87 ;  Faesi, 
p.  37  ;  A.  Jacob,  p.  387.     Nitzsch  gets  over  this  difficulty 
easily  by  the  very  convenient  phrase,  "parallel  narratives" 
(Philol.  17,  pp.  1-28) ;  cf.  note  71. 

94  Faesi  on  Od.  15  : 1.     Still,  even  in  this  case,  it  is  possi- 
ble to  find  an  apparent  solution.     One  is  given  in  detail  by 
Nitzsch  (Epische  Poesie,  p.  128  sq.),  which  it  is  worth  while 
to  read  through,  and  then  ask  yourself  if  it  is  intelligible. 

95  A.  Jacob,  p.  421.     Most  of  the  passages  in  which  the 
woes  of  Odysseus  are  said  to  be  caused  by  Poseidon's  wrath, 
Dlintzer  (Horn.  Abh.  p.  409)  regards  as  interpolations. 

96  Faesi,  p.  41 ;  A.  Jacob,  p.  369,  481 ;  Kern,  Bernerkun- 
gen  iiber  die  Freier  in  der  Odyssee,  Progr.  des  Gym.  zu  Ulm, 
1861 ;  Hartel,  Zeitschr.  fur  d.'osterr.  Gym.,  1871. 

97  Faesi,  p.  40  sq.    Cf.  the  attempt  of  Ameis  (on  11  :  116) 
to  explain  away  the  present  nartSovffiv. 

98  A.  Jacob,  p.  481. 

99  Od.  13  :  399 ;  16  : 176.     Faesi,  in  this  case,  contrary  to 
his  usual  practice  in  regard  to  the  Odyssey,  tries  to  estab- 
lish harmony  by  the  meaning  he  gives  to  icvdveog.     Ameis 
(Anhang  on  16 : 176)  avails  himself  of  physiological  science. 
See,  on  the  other  hand,  the  plain  statements  of  A.  Jacob, 
p.  463 ;  Kirchhoff,  Composition  der  Od.,  VI. 

100  Faesi,  p.  41. 

101  A.  Jacob,  pp.  462,  471  sq.,  507. 

102  Eurykleia  and  Eurynome ;  Faesi,  p.  41 ;  A.  Jacob,  p. 
477.    Faesi  gives  several  other  instances  of  this  kind. 

103  See  Bekker's  pregnant  essay  on  the  twentieth  book 
(Horn.  Bliitter). 


104          THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

104  A.  Jacob,  pp.  430,  433  sq. 

105  Od.  17 :  360-491 ;  18  :  346-428 ;  20  :  284-344.    See  Meis- 
tcr  (Philol.  8). 

106  Od.  14 :  29  sqq. ;  16  :  4  sq.,  162  ;  17  :  291  sqq. 

10T  Od.  13  :  257-286 ;  14  :  199-359 ;  17  :  419-444 ;  19  : 172- 
248.  There  is  still  another  in  24  :  303-314.  Cf.  A.  Jacob, 
p.  453  sqq. ;  Faesi,  p.  43. 

108  Od.  4:793;    16:450;    18:188;    20:54;    21:357- 
23  :  5.     A.  Jacob,  p.  480. 

109  Od.  7:  215;  17:503;  18  :  118,  and  cf.  15  :  344;  17:286; 

18  :  53.     That  the  Xaijuapyi'a  and  yaaTpinapyia  of  Odysseus 
were  astounding  to  readers  in  ancient  times  appears  from 
the  combinations  and  comments  in  Athcnaeos  X.  412  b. 

110  Od.  15  :  160-165,  525-528 ;  17  :  160,  541 ;  19  :  535  sqq. ; 
20  : 103,  345  sqq. ;  21  :  411-413 ;  22  :  240. 

111  The  cases  given  in  the  text  by  no  means  exhaust  the 
list  of  strange  repetitions  and  accumulations,  e.  g.  the  two- 
fold direction  given  to  Odysseus  as  to  the  way  to  the  pal- 
ace of  Alkinous,  Od.  6  :  300  ;  7  :  20  (A.  Jacob,  p.  348) ;  the 
repeated  presentation  of  gifts  to  him  by  the  Phaeakians, 
Od.  8  :  385 ;  11  :  335 ;  13  :  10 ;  the  references  by  Penelope,  Od. 

19  :  518  sqq. ;  20  :  65  sqq.,  to  the  myth  of  Pandareos,  with 
different  conceptions  of  the  myth  (Bekker,  Horn.  Blatter, 
p.  125) ;    Odysseus  complains  ad  nauseam  of  the  ruinous 
effect  of  his  stomach's  resistless  demands,  Od.  7  :  216;  15  : 
344:  17:286-289;  18:53;  he  tests  repeatedly  the  faithful- 
ness of  his  servants,  Od.  14  :  459  ;  15  :  304  ;  16  :  305  (A.  Ja- 
cob, p.  465),  etc.    As  to  the  poetic  value  of  the  second  half 
of  the  Odyssey,  see  especially  Kirchhoff,  Composition  der 
Odyssee,  p.  209. 

112  Kirchhoff,  in  his  book  Die  Homerische  Odyssee  und 
ihre  Entstchung  (1859).  has  given  the  result  of  several  years 


NOTES  104-112.  105 

of  study  in  such  form  as  to  show  to  the  eye  his  theory, 
printing  separately  the  several  successive  layers  of  which 
the  poem  consists.  He  is  very  far  from  thinking  that  he 
can  draw  an  exact  line  between  the  original  and  tlie  added 
portions,  but  chooses  the  above  as  the  simplest  way  of  giv- 
ing his  conclusions  definitely.  The  prefixed  explanations 
do  not  undertake  to  give  the  reasons  for  his  analysis,  but 
simply  to  supplement  the  unavoidable  deficiencies  of  this 
method  of  stating  it.  "  The  Odyssey,  as  we  have  it,  is 
neither  the  single  creation  of  one  poet,  only  disfigured  by 
interpolations  here  and  there,  nor  a  collection  of  indepen- 
dent poems  from  diiFerent  authors  and  dates,  strung  together 
in  the  order  of  events,  but  a  systematic  enlargement  and  re- 
modelling in  a  later  age  of  an  originally  simpler  nucleus. 
This  nucleus,  which  I  call  'the  earlier  revision,'  in  which 
form  the  poem  was  known  until  about  660  B.C.,  is  not  it- 
self simple,  but  consists  of  an  earlier  and  a  later  part,  which 
belong  to  different  times,  different  authors,  and  different 
points  on  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor.  The  first  and  earliest 
part  of  the  whole  poem,  '  the  Return  of  Odysseus,'  is  an 
original  unit  which  cannot  be  further  analyzed.  It  formed, 
without  the  addition  of  the  second  part,  a  complete  inde- 
pendent whole.  It  is  not,  however,  a  popular  epic  in  the 
usual  sense  of  the  term,  but  belongs  to  the  period  when  the 
artistic  epic  was  being  developed."  This  "  Return  of  Odys- 
seus'' consisted  of  Od.  1  :  1-87;  5  :  43-7  :  17;  7  :  84-102, 
132-184, 233-242 ;  then  followed  so  much  of  the  narrative  of 
the  adventures  of  Odysseus  as  remains  in  a  tolerable  state 
of  preservation  in  Od.  9  : 16-564;  then  (according  to  essay 
IV.  in  his  other  book,  to  be  presently  mentioned)  the  origi- 
nal part  of  the  vima  in  Od.  11;  then  Od.  7  :  251-297;  11 : 
333-353 ;  13  :  7-9, 13-184.  The  second  part  of  "the  earlier 


106          THE   OKIGIN   OF   THE   HOMEKIC   POEMS. 

revision"  consisted  of  nearly  the  whole  of  Od.  13  : 185-23  : 
296,  excluding  all  passages  which  in  any  way  directly  or 
indirectly  presuppose  the  Telemachia,  and  a  few  others  for 
other  reasons.  This  part  was  added  before  the  first  Olym- 
piad, with  special  knowledge  of  and  reference  to  the  former, 
apart  from  which  it  never  existed,  and  to  which  it  is  de- 
cidedly inferior  in  poetic  quality.  "  Between  G60  and  580 
B.C.  this  'earlier  revision'  was  subjected  to  a  thorough  re- 
working by  some  person  unknown,  whereby  the  length  of 
the  poem  was  increased  by  more  than  one  half,  the  text 
much  changed,  and  here  and  there  gaps  left  in  it.  This 
reworking  was  occasioned  by  the  desire,  on  the  one  hand, 
to  complete  the  Odyssey  by  incorporating  into  it  the  con- 
tents of  certain  earlier  poems  of  the  same  circle  of  myths, 
and,  on  the  other,  to  give  to  the  whole  a  conclusion  more 
in  accordance  with  the  taste  of  the  time."  This  later  re- 
vision became  then  the  foundation  of  the  work  of  the  edi- 
torial commission  of  Peisistratos,  and  had  a  few  interpola- 
tions made  in  it  by  them. — The  reasonings  on  which  a 
part  of  these  conclusions  were  based  are  stated  in  seven 
essays,  which  appeared  first  in  different  periodicals  and 
afterwards  without  change  in  Die  Composition  der  Odys- 
see,  gesammelte  Aufsatze  von  Kirchhoff  (Berlin,  1869). 
(Essay  I.  will  be  found  in  Rhein.  Mus.  15  ;  II.  in  Philol.  15  ; 
III.  in  Monatsberichte  der  Kon.  Akad.  der  Wissenschaften, 
Berlin,  1861 ;  IV.  in  Philol.  15;  V.  in  Rhein.  Mus.  15 ;  VI. 
in  Jahn's  Jahrb.  1865 ;  VII.  in  Philol.  19.)  The  first  essay 
shows,  with  a  conclusiveness  rare  in  such  matters,  that  the 
part  of  the  first  book  from  line  88  on  is  a  distorted  and 
clumsy  reproduction  of  the  corresponding  passage  in  the 
second  book.  The  establishment  of  this  point  not  only 
shuts  out  the  possibility  of  maintaining  original  unity  of 


NOTE  112.  107 

conception  for  the  Odyssey,  but  also  settles  that  "  the  pas- 
sage referred  to  of  the  second  book,  with  all  that  can  be 
shown  to  stand  in  original  and  organic  connection  with  it, 
proceeds  from  a  different  and  an  earlier  poet  than  the  cor- 
responding part  of  the  first  book  with  its  belongings ;  the 
poet  of  the  latter  knew  the  passage  in  the  second  book  and 
used  it  (in  part  in  its  precise  words)  in  his  own  way  and  to 
his  own  ends."  His  object  plainly  was  to  connect  the  nar- 
rative of  the  journey  of  Telemachos  with  that  of  the  return 
of  Odysseus.  —  In  the  fifth  essay  Kirchhoff  undertakes  to 
show,  starting  out  from  a  remark  of  Aristarchus  in  refer- 
ence to  Od.  12 : 374-390,  that  the  passage  in  the  narrative 
of  Odysseus  extending  from  9  : 565  to  12  : 446  (with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  original  part  of  the  vkxvia. — see  essay  fourth) 
was  originally  composed  in  the  third  person  as  told  by  the 
poet,  and  then  rewritten  in  the  first  person  as  told  by  Odys- 
seus himself.  Thus  we  have  in  the  present  narrative  an 
original  nucleus  and  a  subsequent  addition.  The  vinvia  in- 
corporated into  this  addition  is  shown  in  the  fourth  essay 
to  belong  to  the  original  nucleus.  In  the  latter  part  of  the 
third  essay  it  is  shown  that  several  features  borrowed  from 
the  myth  of  the  Argonauts  have  been  taken  up  into  this 
subsequent  addition. — In  the  first  part  of  the  third  essay 
he  points  out  in  Od.  7  : 240-259  the  place  at  which  came 
originally  the  simpler,  not  yet  enlarged,  narrative  of  the 
wanderings  of  Odysseus,  in  answer  to  the  question  ad- 
dressed to  him  on  his  entrance  into  the  palace  of  the  Phae- 
akian  king. — The  sixth  essay  brings  out  the  fact  that  the 
incident  in  the  story  which  is  minutely  detailed  in  the 
thirteenth  and  elaborately  made  use  of  in  the  sixteenth 
book,  the  transformation  of  Odysseus  by  the  wand  of  Athene, 
is  not  referred  to  at  the  critical  point  of  his  recognition  by 


108          THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC    POEMS. 

Penelope,  where  it  could  not  but  have  been  remembered, 
yet  where  only  such  change  in  his  appearance  is  assumed  as 
•  time  and  trials  would  bring  about.  This  serious  incon- 
sistency in  the  twenty-third  book  is  disguised  by  an  inter- 
polation, the  occasion  of  which  is  easily  explained  and  its 
disturbing  influence  on  the  context  manifest. — The  seventh 
essay  begins  with  a  discussion  of  the  two  passages,  Od.  16  : 
281-298  and  19  :  3-52,  concerning  the  concealment  of  the 
arms,  and  shows  that,  contrary  to  the  hitherto  universal 
opinion  that  the  former  is  an  interpolation,  the  latter  is 
really  an  awkward  imitation  of  the  former,  and  was  intro- 
duced, together  with  the  line  Od.  22  :  141,  in  order  to  con- 
nect the  topic  of  16  :  281-298  with  the  narrative  of  the  kill- 
ing of  the  suitors  which  otherwise  docs  not  recognize  it. — 
In  all  these  discussions  of  the  inner  structure  of  the  Odys- 
sey it  is  characteristic  of  the  writer's  method  that  he  doeo 
not  content  himself  with  pointing  out  contradictions  and 
irreconcilable  assumptions  in  the  different  parts  of  the 
poem,  but  rather  demonstrates  in  every  case  the  earlier  and 
later  strata  of  the  work,  and  the  intelligible  purpose  of  the 
reviser  in  his  changes.  To  determine  approximately  the 
time  of  these  strata  can  be  possible  only  by  combination 
with  other  dates  in  the  history  of  the  growth  of  the  Greek 
epic,  and  such  combinations  are  made  in  the  second,  third, 
and  fourth  essays.  The  cyclic  "Nostoi"  (essay  IV.), which 
belong  to  about  700  B.C.,  show  knowledge  of  the  third  and 
fourth  books  of  the  Odyssey  and  of  the  original  "  Return 
of  Odysseus  "  in  the  ninth  book  (including  as  above  part 
of  the  VBKVIO),  but  decidedly  none  of  the  enlarged  version 
of  his  adventures  contained  in  books  X.-XII.  From  this 
it  is  certain  that  at  that  date  the  poem  on  the  journey  of 
Telemachos  and  the  original  "Return  of  Odysseus"  were 


NOTE  112.  109 

in  existence,  and  also  that  the  later  additions  to  the  latter 
had  not  yet  been  incorporated  with  it ;  it  is  also  probable 
that  these  additions  did  not  yet  exist  even  as  an  indepen- 
dent poem.  This  latter  point  is  raised  from  probability  to 
certainty  by  a  consideration  from  another  source  (essay  III.). 
The  later  additions  show  a  connection  in  the  localities 
mentioned  with  a  form  of  the  Argonaut  myth  which  can- 
not be  earlier  than  the  colonization  of  Kyzikos ;  it  follows 
that  "  the  origin  of  the  poem  which  forms  the  basis  of 
books  X.-XII.  of  the  Odyssey  falls  at  the  earliest  towards 
the  end  of  the  period  750-680  B.C.,  and  its  revision  in  the 
present  form — that  is,  the  final  shaping  of  the  first  half  of 
our  Odyssey — not  much  before  660  B.C."  On  the  other 
hand  (essay  II.),  the  Eoai,  which  belong  between  620  and 
580  B.C.,  recognize  the  contents  of  the  Odyssey  as  we  have 
it  in  such  a  way  as  to  warrant  the  inference  that  the  final 
revision  of  the  poem  was  somewhat  generally  known  by 
580  B.C. 

But  little  has  been  done  as  yet  in  the  way  of  thorough  and 
unprejudiced  examination  of  this  closely  connected  chain 
of  reasoning.  The  notices  of  the  earlier  work  (Die  Horn. 
Odyssee,  etc.),  by  "W.  Ribbeck  and  L.  Friedlander,  in  Jahn's 
Jahrb.  79,  may  be  left  out  of  account,  since  they  were  written 
before  the  essays  were  published.  Friedlander's  review,  in 
Jahn's  Jahrb.  83,  of  the  four  earlier  essays,  expresses  agree- 
ment in  most  points  with  Kirchhoff  's  views,  though  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  confusion  in  the  first  book  of  the  Odyssey 
he  still  maintains  his  own  idea  (Anal.  Horn.  p.  476)  of  a 
threefold  revision;  an  idea  which,  by  its  unnecessary  arti- 
ficialness,  rather  helps  to  make  Kirchhoff's  simpler  theory 
more  acceptable.  W.  Hartel's  "  Untersuchungen  uber  die. 
Entstehung  der  Odyssee''  (Zeitschr.fiir  d.  6'sterr.Gym.,  1864, 


110          THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   HOMERIC    POEMS. 

1865)  ranks  before  all  others  for  logical  and  keen-sighted 
penetration  into  Kirchhoff  's  course  of  thought.  This  leads 
him  to  supply  omissions  in  some  of  the  essays,  and  to  oppose 
some  of  the  statements  and  reasonings,  especially  as  to  the 
recognition  by  the  cyclic  "  Nostoi  "  of  the  Telemachia  and 
the  original  "  Return  of  Odysseus;"  as  to  the  shifting  of  the 
later  additions  from  the  third  into  the  first  person  (against 
which  see  Nitzsch,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  81);  and  as  to  the  point 
in  the  poem  at  which  the  original  brief  narrative  of  the 
wanderings  of  Odysseus  is  supposed  to  have  stood.  As 
to  Steinthal's  criticism  of  Kirchhoff 's  views  (in  the  article 
mentioned  in  note  86),  see  the  remarks  of  W.  Hartel  in  a  re- 
view of  Miillenhoff ' s  Deutsche  Alterthumskunde  (Zeitschrift 
fur  d.  6'sterr.  Gym.,  1871).  A  criticism  of  this  whole  theory 
of  Kirchhoff 's,  hostile  in  all  particulars,  is  to  be  found  in 
Duntzer's  Kirchhoff,  Kochly,  und  die  Odyssee  (Koln,  1872). 
The  method  of  refutation  is  essentially  the  same  throughout, 
that  those  passages  on  which  Kirchhoff  bases  his  conclu- 
sions are  set  aside  as  interpolations,  to  which  he  adds  that 
Other  passages,  to  the  connection  of  which  Kirchhoff  makes 
no  objection,  contain  as  much  material  for  such  criticism  as 
those  in  which  he  finds  evidence  of  growth  by  successive 
modifications.  As  to  the  former  point,  Kirchhoff  lays  down 
the  principle  (Compos,  der  Od.  p.  201) :  "  To  declare  a  pas- 
sage in  any  text  an  interpolation,  without  being  able  to  as- 
sign an  occasion  for  or  design  in  its  being  inserted,  is  a 
thoroughly  unscientific  proceeding,  by  which  investigations 
such  as  that  into  the  origin  of  the  Homeric  poems  cannot 
be  furthered,  but  only  hindered."  This  principle  Duntzer 
repeatedly  and  emphatically  rejects,  e.  g.  p.  19 :  "Kirchhoff 
plainly  carries  much  too  far  his  principle  that  the  assertion 
of  an  interpolation  cannot  be  scientifically  justified  unless 


NOTE  112.  Ill 

the  reason  for  it  can  be  pointed  out.  Since  no  manifest  in- 
congruity, breaking  the  pure,  smooth  flow  of  the  poem,  can 
have  proceeded  from  the  poet,  any  such  blemish  must  be 
set  aside  as  a  clumsy  addition,  which  we  shall  continue  to 
ascribe  to  some  improvising  rhapsode  until  we  get  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  in  the  flesh  of  Kirchhoff 's  later  re- 
viser. For  most  interpolations  one  can  imagine  a  reason, 
which,  however,  has  nothing  more  than  a  greater  or  less 
degree  of  probability  in  its  favor ;  but  the  interpolation  is 
an  objective  fact,  and  when  we  consider  the  arbitrary  ca- 
price, obeying  only  the  sudden  and  often  strange  sugges- 
tion of  the  moment,  manifest  in  the  additions  of  the  rhap- 
sodes, we  see  the  unreasonableness  of  requiring  an  expla- 
nation of  them  in  every  case."  It  is  plain  from  these  and 
similar  expressions,  that  only  those  can  agree  with  Diint- 
zer's  criticisms  who  can  be  satisfied  with  "  arbitrary  ca- 
price" and  "  strange  suggestions  of  the  moment."  He  finds 
the  safeguard  for  right  decision,  in  case  of  interpolations 
for  which  an  occasion  or  motive  cannot  be  found,  in  a  full 
entrance  into  the  spirit  of  the  poet,  such  as  results  from  a 
loving  but  critical  following  in  his  steps  from  sentence  to 
sentence,  from  speech  to  speech,  from  incident  to  incident; 
when  this  is  done,  the  spurious  element  excludes  itself. 
This  describes  quite  rightly  the  origin  of  the  tact  and  feel- 
ing for  inequality  of  character  by  which  the  spurious  may 
be  detected,  but  in  order  to  lift  this  feeling  above  the 
dangers  which  belong  to  its  subjective  nature,  and  to  be 
able  to  convince  others  of  the  truth  of  its  decisions,  it 
is  necessary  to  support  it  by  definite  arguments.  Diintzer 
himself  has  only  to  recall  his  own  variations  in  the  pas- 
sages he  has  proposed  to  exclude  to  see  the  justice  of 
this  demand.  (Duntzer's  answer  to  these  criticisms  may 


112          TIIE   OKIGIN    OF    THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

be  found  in  his  last  book,  Die  Homerische  Fragc,  Leip- 
zig, 1874.) 

With  Hai'tel's  essay,  mentioned  above  (Untersuchungen, 
etc.),  we  may  associate  Heimreich's  "  Die  Telemachie  und 
der  jiingere  Nostos"  (Progr.  des  Gym.  zu  Flensburg,  1871), 
inasmuch  as  it  likewise  accepts  Kirchhoff 's  principles,  but 
is  led  by  them  to  somewhat  different  results,  and  so  to  a 
modification  of  his  theory.  The  principal  points  of  diver- 
gence are  as  follows :  To  remove  all  obscurity  and  confusion 
from  the  first  book,  Heimreich  would  exclude  the  supposed 
interpolations,  leaving  thus  lines  89  sq.,  96, 102-269,  295-324 
(with  probably  421-427  as  a  transition  passage),  which  form 
an  unobjectionable  introduction  to  the  journey  of  Telema- 
chos,  and  are  the  work  of  the  same  poet  who  composed  the 
next  three  books.  The  Telemachia  never  existed  as  a  sep- 
arate poem,  but  the  same  poet  who  composed  it  inserted  it 
(or  the  greater  part  of  it)  between  Od.  1  :  87  and  5  :  29  in  the 
process  of  enlarging  the  Odyssey  from  its  simpler  original. 
As  to  the  peculiarities  of  the  Kirke-Episode,  Heimreich 
makes  some  valuable  remarks.  His  theory,  in  brief,  is  as 
follows :  "  There  was  originally  a  shorter  poem  on  the  re- 
turn of  Odysseus  (in  substance  the  same  with  KirchhofTs 
original  '  Return,'  but  with  the  addition  of  the  myths  of 
Aeolos  and  of  the  Laestrygoni) ;  this  was  expanded  before 
the  time  of  the  'Nostoi'  of  Agias  (that  is,  probably  before 
700  B.C.),  by  a  second  poet,  to  the  compass  of  our  Odyssey, 
with  the  exception,  of  course,  of  a  few  late  interpolations." 
These  criticisms  of  Heiinreich's  touch  in  part  the  points 
for  which  Kirchhoff  has  not  yet  published  a  statement  of 
his  reasons ;  such  as  the  discrimination  of  the  "  later  addi- 
tions" from  the  original  "Return  of  Odysseus,"  and  the  in- 
dependence of  the  Telemachia. 


XOTE  112.  113 

An  indirect  attack  upon  KirchhofPs  investigations  is 
contained  in  the  section  on  the  Odyssey  in  Bergk's  Griecli. 
Literatur-Geschichte,  I.  pp.  654-726,  in  which,  though  there 
is,  as  usual,  no  mention  of  the  labors  of  other  scholars,  the  ref- 
erence is  plain  to  those  who  know  the  literature  of  the  sub- 
ject. The  development  of  the  present  form  of  the  poem 
out  of  the  original  Odyssey,  which  he  ascribes  to  a  different 
poet  from  that  of  the  original  Iliad,  is  explained  by  Bergk 
in  essentially  the  same  way  as  in  the  case  of  the  Iliad  (see 
note  27).  But  in  this  case  he  admits  that  the  intruded  mat- 
ter is  not  so  extensive  as  to  suppress,  so  completely  as  in 
the  Iliad,  the  original,  nor  to  disturb  the  structure  so  thor- 
oughly. While  some  books,  as  the  sixth,  are  almost  free 
from  interpolations,  in  others,  as  the  eighth,  only  a  moder- 
ate portion  of  the  original  poem  remains,  and  in  general 
the  first  half  of  the  poem  has  suffered  less  at  the  hands  of 
the  reviser  than  the  second.  (On  Bergk's  treatment  of  the 
Odyssey,  see  "\V.  Hartel's  review,  mentioned  in  note  27.) 
Bergk's  attitude  towards  Kirchhoff's  investigations  may 
be  most  clearly  seen  in  the  case  of  the  first  book  of  the 
Odyssey.  He  regards  the  conversation  of  Athene  with  Te- 
leniachos  as  an  essential  pre-condition  of  the  narrative  of 
the  three  following  books,  but  as  so  confused  and  blind 
that  it  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the  original  poet.  "It  is 
probable  that  the  speech  of  Athene  was  lost  in  careless 
transmission  ;  then  he  who  gave  the  Odyssey  its  present 
form  endeavored,  to  fill  up  as  best  he  could  the  serious 
gap,  using,  with  no  great  skill,  the  hints  to  be  found  in  the 
second  book."  The  introduction  of  the  name  of  Mentcs, 
also,  is  an  addition,  so  that  "  but  little  of  the  original  poem 
is  to  be  found  in  the  first  book.''  Here  the  result  of  Kirch- 
hoff's investigation  is  reproduced  ;  but  whereas  that  invcs- 


114:          THE   ORIGIN    OF    THE    HOMERIC   POEMS. 

tigation  confined,  itself  to  reasonable  inferences  from  the 
actual  form  of  the  Odyssey,  here  we  have  added  the  hypoth- 
esis, unproved  and  hardly  capable  of  proof,  that  the  poor 
work  of  the  reviser  replaces  the  accidentally  lost  good 
work  of  the  original  poet. 

A  minute  criticism  of  Kirchhoff's  whole  theory  will  be 
found  in  Ed.  Kauimer's  Die  Einheit  der  Odyssee,  nach 
Widerlegung  der  Ansichten  von  Lachmann-Steinthal,  Koch- 
ly,  Hennings,  und  Kirchhoff,  dargestellt  von  Dr.  Ed.  Kam- 
mer  in  Kouigsberg. — Anhang:  Homerische  Blatter  von  K. 
Lehrs  (Leipzig,  1873).  The  first  part  of  the  book  is  occu- 
pied with  the  refutation  announced  in  the  title;  in  the  sec- 
ond part  the  author  goes  through  the  Odyssey,  throwing 
out  the  lines  he  regards  as  interpolated,  and  presenting  thus 
the  poem  in  its  pristine  unity.  But  the  criticism  of  those 
essays  of  Kirchhoff 's  which  have  to  do  with  passages  in 
the  latter  half  of  the  Odyssey  is  to  be  found  in  this  second 
part  in  connection  with  the  author's  statement  of  his  own 
views.  He  conceives  the  poet  of  the  Iliad  and  of  the 
Odyssey  as  developing  a  profound  ethical  theme  in  a  series 
of  scenes  or  situations,  in  each  of  which,  in  turn,  his  fancy 
is  actively  at  work,  and  his  effort  is  to  enchain  his  hearers 
by  holding  and  busily  occupying  their  imaginative  vision. 
As  he  advanced  in  his  work,  we  may  suppose  that  his  path 
teemed  with  ideas  more  richly,  and  so  it  came  about  that 
of  the  fresh  details  that  flowed  in  upon  his  mind  some  were 
in  conflict  with  what  had  gone  before,  a  fact  which  neither 
poet  nor  hearers  could  be  expected  to  observe,  as  neither 
had  the  whole  before  the  mind  at  once.  Even  when  the 
theme  was  fully  worked  out,  the  poem  did  not  assume  a 
fixed  form,  but  remained  in  a  certain  fluid  state,  ever  re- 
newed by  the  remarkable  faculty  of  improvisation  which 


NOTES  112,  113.  115 

constant  practice  developed.  Then  it  passed  through  the 
hands  of  a  host  of  lesser  poets,  who  amplified  and  varied  it 
greatly.  Kainmer  distinguishes  (pp.  758-761)  five  different 
groups  of  such  additions  and  changes.  His  refutation  of 
Kirchhoff  is  naturally  facilitated  by  the  fact  that  he,  even 
more  decidedly  than  Diintzer,  rejects  Kirchhoff 's  principle 
as  to  the  cases  in  -which  one  may  assume  the  existence  of 
an  interpolation.  Two  brief  notices  (Schaclc's  Wissensch. 
Monatsbliitter,  1874 ;  Altpreussische  Monatsschrift,  1873) 
by  Lehrs,  whose  disciple  on  this  question  Kammer  avows 
himself  to  be,  warmly  commend  this  book,  and  another,  by 
H.  Weil  (Revue  Critique,  1874),  expresses  agreement  with 
its  principles.  The  reviewer  in  the  Gottinger  Gelehrtcr  An- 
zeiger  (1874)  indicates  by  judicious  extracts  the  treatment 
of  the  question  in  it,  and  shows  by  examples  that  the  con- 
tents do  not  justify  the  assumption  of  infallibility  on  the 
part  of  the  author.  Similarly  A.  Bischoff,  in  Philol.  An- 
zeiger  (1875),  and  in  Philologus,  34.  Hennings  replies,  in 
Jahn's  Jahrb.  (1874),  to  the  criticism  of  his  views,  so  far  as 
applies  to  the  first  three  books  of  the  Odyssey.  A  care- 
ful account  of  Kammer's  critical  treatment  of  the  first 
twelve  books  of  the  Odyssey  is  given  by  Dr.  Lange,  in 
the  Zeitschrift  fur  d.  Gym.,  1875,  Philol.  Jahresbericht. 

113  In  Lobell's  AVeltgcschichte  in  Umrissen  (1846),  I.  p. 
GOO  sqq.,  is  a  statement  of  the  order  and  relation  in  which 
Ritschl  placed  the  incidents  of  the  growth  of  the  Iliad  and 
Odyssey :  "  I.  Period.  Existence  of  certain  heroic  lays,  cel- 
ebrating the  Trojan  war,  immediately  after  its  occurrence, 
at  first  among  the  Achaeans  in  Greece,  and  then  among  the 
colonies  of  Asia  Minor.  II.  Period,  perhaps  900-800  B.C. 
The  unadulterated  poetry  of  Homer  and  the  Homeridae, 
still  unwritten,  with  the  digamma  pronounced.  Out  of  a 


11C          THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE    HOMERIC    POEMS. 

rich  abundance  of  epic  lays  the  pre-eminent  genius  of  Ho- 
mer selects  a  number,  and  combines  them,  fused  together 
with  his  own  productions,  into  an  artistic  unity,  having  for 
its  central  point,  to  which  all  parts  have  reference,  a  moral 
truth.  This  process  is  something  far  higher  than  mere 
compilation;  it  is  the  first  creation  of  a  great  organized 
whole.  Thus  fully  developed,  the  genuine  Iliad  and  Odyssey 
are  transmitted  by  the  members  of  close  guilds  or  schools 
of  poets,  while  at  the  same  time  the  detached  songs,  out  of 
which  they  sprang,  still  survive.  III.  Period,  800-700  B.C. 
Circulation  of  the  Homeric  poems,  still  unwritten,  but  with 
gradual  disappearance  of  the  digamma  and  separation  of 
the  lays  from  one  another  by  the  rhapsodes,  whose  art  is 
no  longer  in  the  hands  of  the  Homeridae  exclusively.  The 
poems  are  also  expanded  by  insertions.  IV.  Period,  700- 
COO  B.C.,  in  two  divisions.  (1)  First  commission  of  the 
poems  to  writing,  without  the  digamma  (for  the  Alexan- 
drian scholars  found  no  trace  of  it  remaining);  continued 
separation  of  the  lays  by  the  rhapsodes,  but  no  further  ad- 
ditions to  the  poems,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
Peisistratos  finds  them  in  existence  as  if  handed  down  from 
antiquity.  (2)  The  collection  of  separate  parts  to  form 
larger  units.  Oral  tradition  continues,  and  arbitrary  separa- 
tion and  combination  of  the  lays ;  but,  also,  care  is  taken 
(e.  g.  by  Solon)  to  prevent  falsification  of  the  traditional 
text  by  having  standard  written  copies  of  single  lays.  V. 
Period,  600-200  B.C.  Peisistratos,  by  having  a  copy  of 
the  poems  written  out  in  the  original  order,  so  far  as  it 
could  be  recovered,  puts  an  end  at  once  to  the  corruption 
of  the  text,  and  to  the  separation  and  arbitrary  linking  to- 
gether of  individual  lays.  The  ordinance  of  Hipparchos 
secures  for  a  long  time  the  practice  of  connected  dcclama- 


NOTES  114- I 1G.  117 

tion  of  the  poems.  At  the  same  time  copies  are  mul- 
tiplied of  the  entire  poems,  they  begin  to  be  the  subject 
of  learned  discussion  among  their  admirers  ( tTraivercu), 
and  are  transcribed  into  the  new  alphabet.  VI.  Period. 
That  of  the  Alexandrian  critics."  A  considerable  part 
of  the  statements  here  made  as  to  the  first  four  periods 
lies  beyond  the  region  of  proof;  and  another  part  of  them 
may  fairly  be  called  untenable,  in  view  of  the  foregoing 
exposition  of  the  subject,  and  the  investigations  on  which 
it  is  based. 

114  See  "W.  Wackernagel's  essay  (I.  p.  341  sqq.),  mentioned 
in  note  15. 

115  As  to  the  relation  between  legend  and  history,  see 
Lauer,  Geschichte  der  Horn.  Poesie,  p.  163. 

116 1  have  let  these  two  sentences,  which  recognize  a  nu- 
cleus of  historical  fact  in  the  Trojan  myths,  stand  as  they 
were  originally  delivered,  although  I  am  far  from  being 
willing  to  maintain  that  view  now.  On  the  history  of  the 
development  of  epic  poems  on  these  myths,  so  far  as  it  is 
sketched  in  the  succeeding  pages,  no  direct  influence  is  ex- 
erted by  one's  opinion  as  to  the  origin  of  the  myths  them- 
selves; and  I  do  not  find  myself  in  a  position  to  reach  a 
decision,  by  independent  examination,  upon  the  ingenious 
combinations  by  which  a  solution  of  the  latter  question  is 
sought.  See  Curtius,  Griech.  Geschichte,  I.  p.  113  sqq.  (Am. 
edition,  I.  p.  145  sqq.),  and  the  comprehensive  and  minute 
investigations  of  Miillenhoff,  Deutsche  Alterthumskunde,  I. 
pp.  5-73.  The  admirable  summary  of  these  investigations 
in  a  review  by  W.  Hartel  (Zeitschr.  fur  d.  osterr.  Gym.,  1871) 
shows  incidentally,  in  regard  to  the  Odyssey,  how  Miillen- 
lioff's  investigations  confirm,  from  a  totally  different  point 
of  view,  Kirchhoff 's  ideas. 


118          THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   HOMERIC   POEMS. 

117  On  the  bards,  see  Welcker,  Ep.  Cycl.  I.  p.  340. 

118  This  inference  from  the  names  is  in  Wackernagel's 
essay,  above  referred  to,  I.  p.  343. 

119  Welcker,  Ep.  Cycl.  II.  p.  11. 

120  The  opposite  inference  from  this  same  case,  namely, 
that  the  songs  of  Demodokos  "contain  evident  traces  of  a 
great  connected  epic  poem,"  is  made  by  Welcker,  Ep.  Cycl. 
I.  p.  348 ;  Biiumlein,  Jahn's  Jahrb.  75  and  81 ;  and  Nitzsch, 
Ep.  Poesie,  p.  197  sqq. 

121  Of  course,  in  this  statement  only  those  dates  are  in- 
cluded which  are  positively  or  probably  based  on  actual 
tradition.     Of  those  based  only  on  combinations,  at  least 
one  carries  Homer  back  to  the  time  of  the  Trojan  \var  (see 
note  42). 

122  For  the  authorities  as  to  competitive  chanting  of  epic 
songs,  see  Bernhardy,  Griech.  Lit.  I.  p.  252  (3d.  eel.).     For 
the  difference  between  bards  and  rhapsodes,  see  Welcker, 
Ep.  Cycl.  I.  pp.  358-406.     The  distinction  is  ignored  in  the 
text,  not  because  it  is  questioned  at  all,  but  only  because  it 
is  comparatively  unimportant  in  this  connection. 

123  Lazar  der  Serbencar,  nach  serbischen  Sagen  und  Hel- 
dengesangen,  von  Siegf.  Kapper,  1851.     This  example  and 
the  following  one  are  cited  by  Miklosich,  Verhandlungen 
der  achtzehnten  Versammlung  deutscher  Philologen,  p.  3. 

124  Wackernagel,  as  "above,  II.  p.  81.      A  recent  study 
of  this  subject  by  C.  d'He'ricault,  Essai  sur  1'Origine  de 
Tfipope'e  Franchise  (Paris,  1859),  I  know  only  by  quota- 
tions. 

125  Compare  the  poetic  style  of  books  I.-X.  with  that  of 
XI.-XVIIL,  and  then  with  that  of  XIX.-XXIV. 

126  It  is  interesting  to  note  the  opinion  on  this  point  indi- 
rectly expressed  by  Aristotle,  when,  in  speaking  of  the  prop- 


KOTES  117-128.  119 

er  length  of  an  epic,  he  does  not  mention  the  Homeric  po- 
ems as  a  model,  as  he  does  in  all  other  respects,  but,  instead, 
lays  down  the  rule  that,  in  order  that  the  whole  may  admit 
of  being  taken  in  at  one  view,  it  should  be  shorter  than  the 
Homeric  poems,  and  not  exceed  in  length  the  (three  or  four) 
tragedies  adapted  to  be  performed  together.  Aiist.  Poet. 
24,  1459  b  17.  Cf.  Vahlen,  Beitrage  zu  Arist.  Poetik,  III. 
pp.  287  sq.,  334  sq.  (Sitzungsber.  der  Wiener  Akad.  vol.  56). 

JST  u  -phe  object  of  the  Athenian  statesman  in  this  meas- 
ure was  the  only  one  intelligible  and  natural  in  his  time,  to 
encourage  competition.  He  aimed  to  introduce  the  most 
difficult  form  of  contest,  in  which  only  the  ablest  rhapsodes 
would  succeed.  To  introduce  the  memorizing  of  the  whole 
poems,  as  a  novelty,  into  the  system  of  the  rhapsode's  art, 
was  surely  a  matter  having  no  kind  of  connection  with  his 
domain."  Lehrs,  Zur  Horn.  Interpolation,  Rhein.  Mus.  N. 
F.  17,  p.  491. 

128  On  this  last  point  Mor.  Haupt  speaks  with  convincing 
arguments  and  well-earned  authority  in  his  "  Festrede  iiber 
den  Gewinn  den  die  deutsche  Philologie  der  classischeu 
Philologie  gewahrt,"  Ber.  iiber  die  Verhandlungen  der  Kon.- 
sachsisch.  Gesellsch.  der  Wissenschaften,  2d  vol.,  1848,  pp.  80 
sqq.,  100. 


THE    EXD. 


,* 


A    000134979    4 


